[2025:RJ-JP:3291-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 701/2024 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Women And Child Development Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. The Director, Women And Child Development Department, Gandhi Nagar, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. The Deputy Director, Women And Child Development Department, Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 4. The Chief Child Development Project Officer, Alsisar, District Jhunjhunu. ----Appellants Versus 1. Smt. Sarita W/o Mukesh Kumar, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Vpo Gangiyasar, P.s. Alsisar, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.). 2. The Secretary Cum Village Development Officer, G.p. Gangiyasar, P.S. Alsisar, District Jhunjhunu. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Ms. Pooja Sharma & Mr. S.M. Sharma on behalf of Mr. Manoj Sharma, AAG HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order 23/01/2025 1. Heard. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants-State would argue that the learned Single Judge committed illegality in issuing mandamus for issuance of appointment order on the basis of selection ignoring the settled legal position that mere selection does not confer any right. Referring to the reasons assigned in the reply, it is stated that though the selection process was completed, Gram [2025:RJ-JP:3291-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-701/2024] Sabha was supposed to send the certified selection list, but such list was not forwarded, therefore, appointment order could not be issued. 3. It is settled legal position that mere selection does not confer any right of appointment, however at the same time, once a candidate has been selected, reasons for not issuing appointment order are required to be stated and such reasons should be relevant. 4. In the present case, the only reason assigned for non- issuance of appointment order is that formally after completion of process for selection, certified list was not forwarded. That shows that the operative reason for non-issuance of appointment order was arbitrary action and except that, no plausible reason was assigned. Therefore, the action of the appellants in not issuing appointment order was clearly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and in such category of cases, mandamus can be issued for appropriate relief. That is what has been done by the learned Single Judge. 5. In the above circumstances, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. Pending application also stands dismissed. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ KAMLESH KUMAR/RAJAT/5