The Government Order dated 24th February, 1998 extended the operative period of the select list, and the appointing authority's discretion to fill vacancies must be reasonable and not affect legitimate expectations for appointment.

Rajesh Balia, J.-The Writ Petition No. 1484/1998 has been filed by the three appellants-petitioner for following reliefs:-

(i)by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be directed to give appointment to the petitioners on the post of Teacher Grade III with effect from 30th March, 1998 with all consequential benefits including salary, fixation, seniority etc.

(ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the cut off date fixed by the respondents for issuing appointment orders as 23.1998 be declared illegal and be struck down.

(iii)any other appropriate order or direction, which this Honble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.

(iv) costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.

2. The petition has arisen in the following circumstances:-

The respondents had invited applications for recruitment to the post of Teacher Grade III in Dungarpur District for academic session 1997-98. The petitioners being eligible for the said recruitment, applied for the same. As a result of selection process, a select list was prepared by the respondent No. 4 , in which, the names of petitioners were placed at Sl. No. 76, 79 and 81 respectively. The respondent No. 4 had issued appointment orders in respect of selected candidates in different categories and the last appointment order was issued on 24th March, 1998 and the appointment order in the general category was issued up to SI. No. 74 amongst the selected candidates in order of merit. The appointed candidates were to join duties by 10th April 1998. The petitioners, having come to know that some of the selected candidates were working elsewhere and were not willing to accept the appointment under the Education Department, approached them and four persons who were enlisted at Sl. No. 63,66, 69 and 70 gave their intention not to join the post in pursuance of appointments offered to them. The candidate whose name was placed in order of merit at Sl. No 75, immediately next to one who was lastly offered appointment, was working at Panchayat Samiti Pipalkhunt, District Banswara and she also showed her unwillingness to accept the appointment under the Education Department at Dungarpur. The copies of the refusal letters addressed to the District Education Officer (Primary Education) No. 1, Dungarpur (Rajasthan) by the aforesaid five candidates have been placed on record. These refusal letters were submitted by the petitioners on 28th March, 1998. The respondent No. 4, who was the appointing authority, showed his willingness to give appointment to the petitioners in order of their merit in their respective categories and sought approval from the respondent No. 3 vide his letter dated 30th March, 1998. This letter which has been annexed to the writ petition shows that on account of non-joining, 8 posts were to remain vacant against which appointment could be given to 8 persons named in the letter in order of their merit in different categories. Out of 8 vacant posts, 6 posts belonged to the General Category and 2 posts to the Reserve Category. However, the respondent No. 3 declined to accede this request of the Education Officer, appointing authority, inter alia, on the ground that the appointment order, in pursuance of relaxation in ban on fresh appointment , should have been issued only on or before 24th March, 1998 and since this proposal has been sent after 24th March, 1998, in terms of Government directions dated 24th February, 1998 no appointment order could be issued.

3. It may be noticed here that in the Advertisement inviting applications, in pursuance of which the select list was prepared, was to remain operative until 31st March, 1998 and as per that Notification, the select list would expire on 31st March, 1998. It is for that reason the cut off date fixed in the Advertisement was also challenged, inter alia, on the ground that the fixation of cu