( 1. ) THE petitioner is a Law Graduate and practicing lawyer and belongs to dhurve Tribe of the State of Madhya Pradesh which is a Scheduled Tribe as per the Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribe Order, 1950. The petitioner applied for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge, Class II in the State of Madhya Pradesh to the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (for short "the MPPSC") and on the basis of her performance in the examination and interview was selected and placed in Serial No. 1 of the supplementary list. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were also selected and placed at Serial Nos. 86 and 92 in the select list. The mppsc sent its recommendation along with the select list and the supplementary list to the State Government and the State Government initially appointed respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to the posts of Civil Judge Class II reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates but subsequently cancelled their appointment on the ground that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 did not belong to Scheduled Tribe. The cancellation of the appointments of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 was challenged in this Court by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in W. P. No. 10128/2006 (S) but by a judgment delivered by us on 10-9-2008 the cancellation of the appointment of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 was upheld by this Court. The case of the petitioner in this writ petition is that since she was placed in the supplementary list at Serial no. 1, on cancellation of the appointments of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to the posts of Civil Judge, Class II reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates, the petitioner was entitled to be appointed to the post of Civil Judge Class II with retrospective effect from the date the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were appointed. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed for appropriate reliefs in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 2. ) MR. D. K. Dixit, assisted by Mr. K. K. Pandey and Mr. Sanjay Patel, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 who did not belong to Scheduled Tribe had been wrongly been appointed to the two posts reserved for Schedule Tribe candidates and since respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are now finally found not to be belonging to Scheduled Tribe and their appointment has been cancelled by the State Government, the petitioner was now entitled to be appointed to the post of Civil Judge, Class II reserved for scheduled Tribe Candidates and hence a mandamus should be issued to the state Government to appoint the petitioner as Civil Judge, Class II. He further submitted that petitioner has filed the writ petition claiming selection and appointment on the post of Civil Judge, Class II during validity period of the select list and it has been held by the Apex Court in State of U. P. Vs. Ram Swamp saroj, AIR 2000 SC 1097, that where a person files a writ petition before the expiry of the validity period of the select list, the Court cannot decline to grant relief to the petitioner merely because the validity period has expired during the pendency of the writ petition.

( 3. ) MR. V. K. Shukla, Deputy Advocate General appearing for the state, respondent No. 1, on the other hand submitted that in State of U. P. and others Vs. Rajkumar Sharma and others, (2006) 3 SCC 330, the Supreme Court had held that selectees cannot claim appointment as a matter of right and even if in some cases appointment have been made by mistake, the selectee cannot claim appointment as a matter of right.

( 4. ) MR. K. S. Wadhwa, learned Counsel appearing for the MPPSC, respondent No. 2, does not dispute the position that in case respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were not selected and placed in the select list of Scheduled Tribe candidates, the name of the petitioner would have found place in the select list of Scheduled Tribe candidates.

( 5. ) MR. P. S. Gaharwar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 3 and 4 did not dispute the position that the appointment of respondent nos. 3 and 4 have been cancelled by the State Government and that such