ORDER : SUDESH BANSAL, J. 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner at length so also the Dy. Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the Department of Secondary Education and perused the record carefully. 2. Matter pertains to claim of petitioner for appointment on the post of PTI Grade-III in District Jalore pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.07.2003, alleging herself to be higher in merit than private respondent No.4, who has been given appointment. 3. The factual matrix, in nutshell as culled out from the record is that: 3.1 In District Jalore, 10 posts of PTI Grade-III (Male) were notified vide advertisement dated 28.07.2003. Out of such 10 posts, on 2 posts, female candidates were to be recruited. In order to fill 2 posts of PTI Grade-III from the female candidates, a list of 10 female candidates was prepared by the respondents according to their merit. The details of respective merit of such 10 female candidates have been made available on record by the petitioner in the form of Schedule-A, appended with the writ petition. 3.2 It is noteworthy herein that this is an undisputed and admitted case by the petitioner as well as by the respondents that both the posts of PTI Grade-III have been filled by the respondents department by granting to Smt. Pushpanjali Choudhary (74.63 marks), and Smt. Prem Lata Vishnoi (74.36 marks) and both appointees have joined on their respective posts way back on 06.04.2004. One of the appointee, Smt. Prem Lata Vishnoi has been impleaded as party respondent No.4 herein though Smt. Pushpanjali Choudhary has not been impleaded as party respondent in the present writ petition. 3.3 As per merit of 10 selected female candidates, petitioner secured 75.83 marks, it means higher than the marks of both appointees. Hence, petitioner put-forth her claim that she is higher in merit than the two appointees named herein-above and is entitled to be considered for appointment on the post of PTI Grade-III as much as entitled to get appointment with all the consequential benefits. Hence, petitioner put-forth her claim that she is higher in merit than the two appointees named herein-above and is entitled to be considered for appointment on the post of PTI Grade-III as much as entitled to get appointment with all the consequential benefits. 3.4 The case of the petitioner as pleaded in the writ petition and argued by the counsel for the writ petitioner before this Court is that the date for interview/document verification of 10 shortlisted female candidates was scheduled by respondents-department on 29.03.2004 at Jalore, but the information of same sent to petitioner through postal telegram was delivered upon the petitioner on 31.03.2004 and written information was delivered on next date i.e. 01.04.2004. Hence, due to not receiving the information prior to the scheduled date of interview, petitioner could not appear on 29.03.2004 and there is no fault on the part of petitioner. Since against 2 vacancies, respondents have given appointment to other female candidates, who are lesser in merit than petitioner, therefore, respondents be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment and to accord appointment to the petitioner on the post of PTI Grade-III as per her merit with all consequential benefits. The copies of delivery of the postal telegram and the written information have been placed on record as Annexures-6 & 7 respectively with the writ petition. 4. Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner has strongly placed reliance upon the final order dated 04.04.2013 passed by the Division Bench of this High Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 601/2005 titled as Balbir Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., dealing with the identical issue of non-delivery of telegram/written information of interview/document verification to the appellant-Balbir Singh that too in respect of the same advertisement dated 28.07.2003 for the post of PTI Grade-III itself, for district Alwar, wherein the Division Bench observed that there is no fault of appellant for his non-appearance in the interview/document verification process on the scheduled date since he was not duly informed by the respondents. For ready reference relevant portion of the judgment delivered by Division Bench, in case of Balbir Singh (supra), read over by counsel for the petitioner before this Court, is being reproduced herein:- “When the appellant could not be informed in time that he has to appear for interview on03.09.2003 and the postal authorities being the agency of the respondent department, it was their duty to see that the applicants must be made known that they have to appear for interview on 03.09.2003. Admittedly in the instant case, the interview letter was served upon him on 04.09.2003 and on 08.09.2003 he served a legal notice at the same time appointments were also made by 08.09.2003 in OBC category for the post of PTI Grade-III pursuant to advertisement dt.28.07.2003, under these facts & circumstances, indisputably the right of fair consideration of the appellant has been seriously jeopardized and he could not be deprived from being considered for appointment. In our considered view, once the person as alleged by him being lower in merit in OBC category secured 77.38% marks has been considered for appointment on the post of PTI Grade-III the appellant who secured 79.24% of marks at least was entitled to be considered and there appears no justification to deny appointment to him who was otherwise eligible under the Rules of 1971 for appointment on the post of PTI Grade- III pursuant to advertisement dt. 28.07.2003, more so when the reason forthcoming from the side of respondent is not supported by any evidence and even otherwise it was the duty of the department to take proper care intimating to the incumbents who are to be called for interview on the date fixed/notified for verification of their academic records on03.09.2003.Consequently, the appeal succeeds & is hereby allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge dt. 23.05.2005 is hereby quashed & set aside and if any incumbent lower in merit than the appellant was considered for appointment on the post of PTI Grade- III in district Alwar pursuant to advertisement dt. 28.07.2003, the respondents are directed to consider candidature of the appellant for appointment to the post of PTI Grade-III. However, he will be entitled for notional benefits including fixation of pay & seniority as per his order of merit but will not be entitled for the actual salary & allowances of the intervening period during which he had not worked. 28.07.2003, the respondents are directed to consider candidature of the appellant for appointment to the post of PTI Grade-III. However, he will be entitled for notional benefits including fixation of pay & seniority as per his order of merit but will not be entitled for the actual salary & allowances of the intervening period during which he had not worked. Appropriate orders be passed within one month. No cost.” (Emphasis supplied) Finally, Division Bench allowed the appeal and directed the respondents to consider the appellant for appointment on merit, since candidates lower in merit, have been given appointment. 5. In addition, counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon and referred to an order dated 17.01.2017 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4824/2004 titled as Banwari Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., wherein as well directions were isued to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of PTI Grade-III against vacancies advertised on 28.07.2003, for another district, relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench delivered in case of Balbir Singh (supra). Counsel for the petitioner has prayed to grant similar relief to the petitioner. 6. Per contra; learned Deputy Government Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the respondent – Education Department, pointed out that information through postal telegram to all 10 selected female candidates, to appear for interview/document verification scheduled on 29.03.2004 was duly sent through telegram on the same date on 26.03.2004. The list and receipts of sending telegram to all the 10 selected female candidates on 26.03.2004, have been annexed with the reply to the writ petition. It has been pointed out that out of 10 female candidates, first 6 candidates whose names find place from Serial No.1 to 6 in the list did not appear but other remaining 4 female candidates appeared. Since Smt. Pushpanjali Choudhary and Smt. Prem Lata Vishnoi whose names were at Serial No.7 & 9 in the list of 10 selected candidates stood higher in merit than the other 2 female candidates, who all appeared for document verification, therefore, against the both vacant posts, appointment was offered to Smt. Pushpanjali Choudhary and Smt. Prem Lata Vishnoi, who joined in pursuance thereof on 06.04.2004. It has further been submitted by the Deputy Government Counsel that the recruitment process in District Jalore on the advertised posts of PTI Grade-III and against two vacant posts on which female candidates were to be appointed, has been over and now no vacant post is available. Further, factum of delivery of the postal telegram and written information to the petitioner to appear for interview/document verification after the scheduled date i.e. 29.03.2004 has been categorically denied and writ petition has been prayed to be dismissed. 7. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the private respondent No.4. 8. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions put forth by the respective counsel for the parties and has gone through the final order dated 04.04.2013 passed by the Division Bench in case of Balbir Singh (supra). 9. This Court finds that the Division Bench in case of Balbir Singh (supra), has clearly observed that “admittedly in the instant case, the interview letter was served upon him on 04.09.2003.” The interview of appellant – Balbir Singh in that case was scheduled on 03.09.2003. Further, Division Bench also observed that no provisional and final merit list of the selected candidates, who were required to call for interview/document verification for appointment on the post of PTI Grade-III in District Alwar, was placed on record. In such backdrop, finding no fault on the part of appellant – Balbir Singh for non-appearance in interview and considering the fact that appointment had been given to the candidates less meritorious than him, the Division Bench directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment. 10. This Court further finds that in the order dated 17.01.2017 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Banwari Lal (supra), judgment of the Division Bench passed in case of Balbir Singh (supra) has been relied upon. 11. In the case at hand, although counsel for petitioner made an attempt to establish that to give information of interview/document verification scheduled on 29.03.2004 at District Jalore to the petitioner, postal telegram was served upon him on 31.03.2004 and written information was delivered upon her on 01.04.2004, it means after expiry of the scheduled date of interview/document verification, but respondents have not admitted this factual aspect of the matter, rather have emphatically denied in the reply to writ petition. Further, it has been projected by respondents that the information through postal telegram to all 10 selected female candidates was delivered simultaneously on one date i.e. 26.03.2004 and to substantiate such plea, written documents including receipt of the postal telegram dated 26.03.2004 have been placed on record. It has also been projected by the respondents that other candidates, living at Districts Alwar and Srimadhopur, namely, Smt. Kavita Rani and Kumari Simranpal Kaur had appeared for interview/document verification on 29.03.2004 after receiving the postal telegram. Thus, it is not an admitted fact in the present case that interview letter/ telegram to petitioner to appear in interview was delivered after expiry of scheduled date of interview. 12. According to the respondents, since petitioner did not turn up for interview/document verification on 29.03.2004, her candidature was not considered for appointment on the post of PTI Grade-III and candidature of other candidates, who appeared in interview, was considered and appointment on merits were offered in accordance with law. The attendance register of the candidates, who appeared for interview/document verification on 29.03.2004 in the office of respondents at Jalore has been placed on record along with the reply to writ petition as Annexure-R/6. 13. This Court finds that the process of sending information through postal telegram, undertaken by the respondents for giving information to the selected candidates to appear for interview/document verification, has not been questioned. Since out of 10 selected female candidates, only 4 turned up before the respondents, hence, out of 4, 2 better and higher meritorious female candidates were considered for grant of appointment and were given appointment on the post of PTI Grade-III. In the opinion of this Court, there is no fault on the part of 2 female candidates, namely, Smt. Pushpanjali Choudhary and Smt. Prem Lata Vishnoi, to whom appointments have been accorded against 2 vacant posts after their document verification, moreso both have indisputably joined w.e.f. 06.04.2004. 14. This Court finds that present case is not that nature of case where petitioner, despite being higher in merit, has not been considered for appointment and appointment has been given to less meritorious persons, but it is a case where petitioner admittedly did not appear for interview/document verification on 29.03.2004, for what so ever reason would be, hence, there is no illegality in considering the candidature of those candidates who appered in interview. As far as factual aspect of belated delivery of postal telegraph to petitioner, after expiry of date of interview, this is disputed question of fact in the present case. In the case at hand, this is not an admitted fact. 15. As far as disputed question of fact in respect of belated delivery/ receipt of postal telegram to the petitioner on 31.03.2004 and written information on 01.04.2004 is concerned, same can be answered after appreciation of evidence. In exercise of writ jurisdiction, this Court neither can collect the evidence of parties nor can enter into area of factual dispute by appreciating evidence. 16. In case of Balbir Singh (supra), the factum of non-delivery of information upon the appellant was an undisputed and admitted fact, which is not in the case at hand. Hence, the resort sought to be taken by counsel for the petitioner to the order of the Division Bench dated 04.04.2013 delivered in case of Balbir Singh (supra) and the order of the Single Bench dated 17.01.2017 delivered in case of Banwari Lal (supra), passed after relying upon the case of Balbir Singh (supra) does not render any help/support to the case of the petitioner. 17. In the given facts and circumstances of present case, this Court does not find it just and proper to replace either of the appointed candidates, namely, Smt. Pushpanjali Choudhary and Smt. Prem Lata Vishnoi, to whom appointment has already been given and they were joined on the post of PTI Grade-III at District Jalore way back on 06.04.2004 by passing an order of appointment in favour of petitioner being higher in merit, moreso when one of appointee, Smt. Pushpanjali Choudhary has not been impleaded as party respondent in the writ petition and only another appointee - Smt. Prem Lata Vishnoi has been impleaded as party respondent No.4. 18. For the discussions and enunciations made herein-above and on account of difference in the factual matrix of the present case, than the facts, available before the Division Bench in case of Balbir Singh (supra), referred to herein-above, this Court does not find the present case fit to exercise its equitable nature of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner. 19. As a final result, writ petition is hereby dismissed. No costs.