Santosh Charan D/O Shri Ajeet Dan ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 4178 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:19052]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7978/2022

1.       Rajendra Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Shyam Sunder
         Vashistha, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of Village
         Lalana, Via Paota, Tehsil Kotputli, Jaipur (Rajasthan) -
         303106.
2.       Shiv Lal Meena Son Of Shri Banke Lal Meena, Aged About
         36 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Jamdoli, Tehsil
         Reni, District Alwar (Rajasthan) - 301409.
                                                                      ----Petitioners
                                       Versus
1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
         Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3.       The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
         Ajmer.
                                                                    ----Respondents

Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7985/2022 Vasundhara Pareek Daughter Of Shri Babu Lal Pareek And Wife Of Shri Rajesh Pareek, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 21, Adarsh Nagar, Malpura, District Tonk (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7986/2022

1. Gopal Ram Godara Son Of Shri Ram Kumar, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Shekhsar, Lunkaransar, Bikaner (Rajasthan) - 334603.

2. Surbhi Nandwana Daughter Of Shri Rajendra Nandwana And Wife Of Shri Harish Nandwana, Aged About 41 Years,

[2023:RJ-JP:19052] (2 of 19) [CW-7978/2022]

Resident Of House No. 7, Amal Ka Kanta, Premi Dwara Marg, Girwa, Udiapur (Rajasthan) - 313001.

3. Kuldeep Singh Son Of Shri Jai Bhagwan Singh, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Near Rav Jaimal Hospital, Shyam Colony, Parbatsar, Nagaur (Rajasthan) - 341512.

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8118/2022 Vikram Singh Gurjar Son Of Shri Ram Dayal Gurjar, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village Mathala, Post Lekari, Tehsil Bansur, District Alwar (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17297/2022 Santosh Charan D/o Shri Ajeet Dan W/o Dr. Chhagan Dan, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village Post Balewa, Tehsil Gadra Road, Barmer (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

[2023:RJ-JP:19052] (3 of 19) [CW-7978/2022]

4. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Laxmi Kant Malpura Mr. Tanveer Ahmed with Mr. Manish Parihar For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, AG with Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma Mr. Siddhant Jain & Mr. Darsh Pareek Mr. M.F. Baig, for RPSC Mr. S.S. Raghav, AAG with Mr. Mananjay Singh Rathore

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Judgment

Reserved on 13/04/2023 Pronounced on 25/08/2023

1. In the present batch of writ petitions, the scope of the

controversy involved pertains to the inaction on part of the

respondents in not operating the waiting list for the examination

of School Lecturer-2018. Therefore, considering the fact that the

writ petitions warrant adjudication on common questions of law,

with the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the

parties, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17297/2022 titled as

Santosh Charan vs State of Rajasthan, is being taken up as

the lead case. It is cautiously clarified that any discrepancies in

the present batch of writ petitions, pertain purely to the factual

narratives contained therein and not viz-a-viz the question(s) of

law to be determined by this Court.

2. At the outset, it is submitted by learned counsel for the

petitioners that the petitioners herein are those candidates, who

[2023:RJ-JP:19052] (4 of 19) [CW-7978/2022]

are placed next in order of merit, after the selected candidates for

the examination of School Lecturer-2018. However, on account of

the pendency of S.B. CWP No. 4777/2021 titled as Surjan Lal

Dhawan vs. State of Rajasthan, wherein a challenge was raised

qua the correctness and/or validity of the impugned revised

answer keys for various subjects, an interim order was passed by

this Court to not operate the waiting list for the subjects

concerned. Being aggrieved of the inaction on part of the

respondent-RPSC, the petitioners have preferred the instant batch

of writ petitions.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Tanveer

Ahamad, has submitted that it is a settled position of law that

selection qua the advertised posts, is only amongst the available

and eligible candidates. It is only when on account of unforeseen

circumstances such as that of inadequate document verification

resulting in establishment of the fact that a candidates inclusion in

the select list was not proper, the candidates who are next in order

of merit, are required to be offered appointment. Similarly, even

under circumstances where the candidates who are otherwise

eligible but did not present themselves for joining, the

appointment of such candidates was liable to be cancelled and

those candidates who were next in the order of merit, were

required to be offered appointment.

4. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners

placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in S.B. CWP No.

1781/2015 titled as Ravindra Purohit vs. State of Rajasthan,

wherein it was held that:

[2023:RJ-JP:19052] (5 of 19) [CW-7978/2022]

"Aside of the aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that in terms of the State Government's circular dated 19.07.200, it was incumbent upon the State Government to push up those in the waiting list during the period of its currency in the event of those in the select list being offered appointment not joining. The reason lies in the fact that by making an offer of appointment to those in the select list, the State Government had taken a conscious decision to make appointments to the number of posts advertised and there was no subsequent contra decision not to fill up posts rendered vacant by the non-joining of those in the select list. The State Government failed to act in terms of its own circular dated 19.07.2001and acted arbitrarily in not operating the waiting list despite vacancies obtaining."

5. Learned counsel further argued that it is also a settled

position of law that the life of the waiting list should start only

after the last candidate who has been offered appointment does

not join or fails to join timely and the life of the waiting list should

not be allowed to commence prior to the said non-joining of

selected candidate(s). In this regard, learned counsel for the

petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court as

rendered in S.B. CWP No. 3569/2015 titled as Pushpendra

Agarwal vs. State of Rajasthan, wherein it was held as under:

"There is also merit in the contention that waiting list shall operate from the date when the selected candidates had not joined. Therefore, the period of six months to give effect to the waiting list has to commence from the date when the selected candidate had not joined and admittedly that period came to an end on 11.09.2014. Therefore, the petitioner was to be issued appointment letter on or before 11.03.2015. A wrong objection was raised by the Section Officer and same was blindly acted upon by the Department."

[2023:RJ-JP:19052] (6 of 19) [CW-7978/2022]

6. In furtherance of the arguments raised above, Mr.

Ahamad contended that the sole object of the selection process is

to ensure that for public posts, requisite eligible candidates as per

merit, are available for appointment so that they can discharge

public functions and duties. Hence, keeping posts vacant, does not

come to the resolve of either, the State or the aggrieved

petitioners, who are placed in the waiting list. Even otherwise, it

was argued that the law relating to the waiting list is clear insofar

as it holds that waiting lists should not be used as a perpetual

source of recruitment for further examinations. However, in the

facts and circumstances of the present case, it was contended that

the petitioners are candidates forming part of the waiting lists qua

the same selection process, for which the posts are lying vacant.

It is not a case where the waiting list has to be operated after the

lapse of a period of several years, against new candidates who are

to be issued appointment orders.

7. In support of the arguments raised herein-above,

learned counsel for the petitioners conclusively placed reliance

upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated in Civil

Appeal No. 5155/1993 titled as R.S. Mittal vs. Union of

India, wherein it was held as under:

"It is no doubt correct that a person on the select panel has no vested right to be appointed to the post for which he has been selected. He has a right to be considered for appointment. But at the same time, the appointing authority cannot ignore the select panel or decline to make appointment on its whims.

When a person has been selected by the Selection Board and there is a vacancy which can be offered to him, keeping in view his merit position, then ordinarily, there is no justification to ignore him for

[2023:RJ-JP:19052] (7 of 19) [CW-7978/2022]

appointment. There has to be a justifiable reason to decline to appoint a person who is on the select panel. In the present case, there has been a mere inaction on the part of the Government. No reason whatsoever, not to talk of a justifiable reason, was given as to why the appointments were not offered to the candidates expeditiously and in accordance with law. The appointment should have been offered to Mr. Murgad within a reasonable time of availability of the vacancy and thereafter to the next candidate. The Central Government's approach in this case was wholly unjustified."

8. Per contra, learned Advocate General, Mr. M.S. Singhvi,

appearing on behalf of the respondent-RPSC, prior to making any

submissions on merit, briefly shed light on the factual matrix of

the instant case. It was submitted that on 13.04.2018, the

respondent-RPSC issued the advertisement for a total of 5,000

posts of School Lecturer-2018 for different subjects. Thereafter,

the RPSC conducted the examination on various dates for different

subjects and subsequently, issued the final merit list after the

verification of the documents of select candidates. However,

pursuant to the recommendation of the select candidates for the

posts so advertised, Director Education, by way of the requisition

letters dated 10.11.2021 and 11.11.2021, forwarded a list of non-

joiner candidates for operation of the waiting list. Shortly after,

vide letter dated 20.12.2021, RPSC intimated the Director,

Secondary Education that qua the subjects so advertised, life span

of the waiting lists had expired. A tabular exhibiting the expiry of

the waiting lists is marked as 'Annexure R/6'.

9. During the course of arguments as well, it was

submitted that the life of the waiting lists for all the subjects had

[2023:RJ-JP:19052] (8 of 19) [CW-7978/2022]

expired, even prior to the commencement of the present litigation.

Therefore, the waiting list cannot be operated in contravention of

the statutory rules governing the life of the waiting list. In this

regard, reliance was placed upon Rule 20 of the Rajasthan

Education Service Rules 1970, which is reproduced herein-under:

"20. Recommendations of the Commission:- The Commission shall prepare a list of the candidates, whom they consider suitable for appointment to the post concerned, arranged in order of merit and forward the same to the appointing authority: Provided that the Commission may also to the extent of 50% of the advertised vacancies, keep names of suitable candidates may, on requisition, be recommended in order of merit to the appointing authority within 6 months from the date on which the original list is forwarded by the Commission to the appointing authority."

10. Learned Advocate General further contended that the

instant petitions have also been rendered infructuous and hold

mere academic importance, especially on account of the fact that

subsequent to the advertisement for the post of School Lecturer,

2018, the RPSC issued an advertisement for the post of School

Lecturer, 2022, qua which the examination has already been

conducted in the month of October, 2022. As on date, in the Year

2023, no vacancies persist qua the advertisement issued in the

Year 2018.

11. In support of the arguments raised herein-above,

learned Advocate General placed reliance on the dictum of the

Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated in Gujarat State Dy.

Executive vs. State of Gujarat as reported in 1994 (2) SCALE

866, wherein it was held as under:-

[2023:RJ-JP:19052] (9 of 19) [CW-7978/2022]

8. Coming to the next issue, the first question is what is a waiting list?; can it be treated as a source of recruitment from which candidates may be drawn as and when necessary?; and lastly how long can it operate? These are some important questions which do arise as a result of direction issued by the High Court. A waiting list prepared in service matters by the competent authority is a list of eligible and qualified candidates who in order of merit are placed below the last selected candidate. How it should operate and what is its nature may be governed by the rules. Usually it is linked with the selection or examination for which it is prepared. For instance, if an examination is held say for selecting 10 candidates for 1990 and the competent, authority prepares a waiting list then it is in respect of those ten seats only for which selection or competition was held. Reason for it is that whenever selection is held, except where it is for single post, it is normally held by taking into account not only the number of vacancies existing on the date when advertisement is issued or applications are invited but even those which are likely to arise in future within one year or so due to retirement etc. It is more so where selections are held regularly by the Commission. Such lists are prepared either under the rules or even otherwise mainly to ensure that the working in the office does not suffer if the selected candidates do not join for one or the other reason or the next selection or examination is not held soon. A candidate in the waiting list in the order of merit has a right to claim that he may be appointed if one or the other selected candidate does not join. But once the selected candidates join and no vacancy arises due to resignation etc. or for any other reason within the period the list is to operate under the rules or within reasonable period where no specific period is provided then candidate from the waiting list has no right to claim appointment to any future vacancy which may arise unless the selection was held for it. She has no vested right except to the limited extent, indicated above, or when the appointing authority acts arbitrarily and makes appointment from the waiting list by picking and choosing for extraneous reasons.

9. A waiting list prepared in an examination conducted by the Commission does not furnish a source of recruitment. It is operative only for the contingency

[2023:RJ-JP:19052] (10 of 19) [CW-7978/2022]

that if any of the selected candidates does not join then the person from the waiting list may be pushed up and be appointed in the vacancy so caused or if there is some extreme exigency the Government may as a matter of policy decision pick up persons in order of merit from the waiting list. But the view taken by the High Court that since the vacancies have not been worked out properly, therefore, the candidates from the waiting list were liable to be appointed does not appear to be sound. This practice, may result in depriving those candidates who become eligible for competing for the vacancies available in future. If the waiting list, in one examination was to operate as an infinite stock for appointments, there is a danger that the State Government may resort to the device of not holding an examination for years together and pick up candidates from the waiting list as and when required.

12. Lastly, reliance was also placed on the dictum of the

Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated in M.P. Electricity Board vs.

Virendra Kumar Sharma reported in (2002) 9 SCC 650

wherein it was held that:

"Any scheme for selection will depend upon the terms on which selections are made. In the present case, there is a scheme as provided in the circular dated 9- 12-1968 and that circular also provided for the panel to be valid/current for a particular period namely one year. After that period, the list would lapse and fresh panel has to be prepared. If that is the scheme, none of the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent would be of any assistance. The High Court is also not justified in relying upon the decision in Shivsingh's case inasmuch as the scheme of appointment was entirely different. Moreover the validity/currency of panel was for a particular period;

that is a salutary principle, behind that Rule so that after the selections are made and appointments to be made may take long time, it is possible that new candidates may have become available who are better or more qualified than those selected, and if they are appointed it would be in the best interests of the institution. Hence we do not think there was any justification for the High Court to have interfered in the matter and directed appointment of the

[2023:RJ-JP:19052] (11 of 19) [CW-7978/2022]

respondent. The order made by the High Court is set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed. The appeal is allowed accordingly."

13. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for

both the sides, scanned the record of the petitions and perused

the judgments cited at Bar.

14. As is immediately apparent from the concise factual

narrative of the instant batch of petitions, the grievance raised

before this Court purely pertains to the purported inaction on part

of the respondents in not operating the waiting list for the

examination of School Lecturer-2018. Therefore, preceding to the

discussion on merits, this Court deems it fit to outline the settled

position of the law, insofar as it relates to the operation of the

waiting list by the Commission tasked with the responsibility of

administering the requisite appointments for the posts so

advertised.

15. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon the dictum

of the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated in Rakhi Ray and Ors.

vs. The High Court of Delhi and Ors. reported in (2010) 2

SCC 637, wherein it was held as under:

"It is a settled legal proposition that vacancies cannot be filled up over and above the number of vacancies advertised as the recruitment of the candidates in excess of the notified vacancies is a denial and deprivation of the constitutional right under Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution, of those persons who acquired eligibility for the post in question in accordance with the statutory rules subsequent to the date of notification of vacancies. Filling up the vacancies over the notified vacancies is neither permissible nor desirable, for the

[2023:RJ-JP:19052] (12 of 19) [CW-7978/2022]

reason, that it amounts to improper exercise of power and only in a rare and exceptional circumstance and in emergent situation, such a rule can be deviated and such a deviation is permissible only after adopting policy decision based on some rational, otherwise the exercise would be arbitrary. Filling up of vacancies over the notified vacancies amounts to filling up of future vacancies and thus, not permissible in law."

16. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab

vs. Raghbir Chand Sharma:(2002) 1 SCC 113, while dealing

with the question as to when the recruitment process can be said

to have come to an end, held as under:

"With the appointment of the first candidate for the only post in respect of which the consideration came to be made and select panel prepared, the panel ceased to exist and has outlived its utility and, at any rate, no one else in the panel can legitimately contend that he should have been offered appointment either in the vacancy arising on account of the subsequent resignation of the person appointed from the panel or any other vacancies arising subsequently. The Circular Orders dated 22.3.1957, in our view, relates to select panels prepared by the Public Service Commission and not a panel of the nature under consideration. That apart, even as per the Circular Orders as also the decision relied upon for the first respondent, no claim can be asserted and countenanced for appointment after the expiry of six months. We find no rhyme or reason for such a claim to be enforced before Courts, leave alone there being any legally protected right in the first respondent to get appointed to any vacancy arising subsequently, when somebody else was appointed by the process of promotion taking into account his experience and needs as well as administrative exigencies."

17. Furthermore, in Mukul Saikia vs. State of Assam

reported in (2009) 1 SCC 386, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that

once appointments are made against the advertised posts, the

select list gets exhausted and those who are placed below the last

[2023:RJ-JP:19052] (13 of 19) [CW-7978/2022]

appointee cannot claim appointment against the posts which

subsequently become available. The relevant extract is reproduced

herein-under:

"At the outset it should be noticed that the select list prepared by APSC could be used to fill the notified vacancies and not future vacancies. If the requisition and advertisement was only for 27 posts, the State cannot appoint more than the number of posts advertised, even though APSC had prepared a select list of 64 candidates. The selection list got exhausted when all the 27 posts were filled. Thereafter, the candidates below the 27 appointed candidates have no right to claim appointment to any vacancy in regard to which selection was not held. The fact that evidently and admittedly the names of the appellants appeared in the select list dated 17.07.2000 below the persons who have been appointed on merit against the said 27 vacancies, and as such they could not have been appointed in excess of the number of posts advertised as the currency of select list had expired as soon as the number of posts advertised are filled up, therefore, appointments beyond the number of posts advertised would amount to filling up future vacancies meant for direct candidates in violation of quota rules. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled to claim any relief for themselves."

18. Upon a cumulative reading of the dictum of the Hon'ble

Apex Court as noted herein-above, it is made abundantly clear

that a waiting list prepared in pursuance of an examination

conducted by the concerned examination authority (herein, RPSC)

does not furnish a perpetual source of recruitment. It is operative

only for the contingency that if any of the selected candidates do

not join pursuant to their selection, then in such an eventuality,

persons from the waiting list may be pushed up for appointment

against the vacancy so caused. In essence, on account of

exigencies that may or may not be foreseeable in the ordinary

[2023:RJ-JP:19052] (14 of 19) [CW-7978/2022]

course of action, the State may as a matter of policy decision, pick

up persons in order of merit from the waiting list. However, at the

same time, it is of utmost relevance to note that the candidates

from the waiting list prepared against the examination conducted

in pursuance of a specific advertisement, cannot subsequently

claim a right of appointment and/or consideration for future

appointments to be made with respect to a different

advertisement. Such practice of deemed consideration for

appointment against prospective vacancies shall result in depriving

those candidates who become eligible for competing for the

vacancies made available in the future. Therefore, if the waiting

list in one examination was to operate as an infinite stock for

appointments, there is danger that the State may resort to the

device of not holding an examination for years together and pick

up candidates from the reservoir of the erstwhile waiting list

candidates, as and when required. Therefore, as per constitutional

discipline, in consonance with the settled position of the law,

courts are actively required to curtail exigencies which may result

in creation of a vested interest amongst the candidates of a

waiting list, for illegally perpetrating the independent right of

future candidates for being considered for appointment on the

requisite posts to be filled in the future.

19. In light of the observations made herein-above, the

solitary consideration for the operation of the waiting list, is the

availability of vacancies against the posts so advertised by the

Commission, especially on account of the settled legal proposition

that vacancies cannot be filled up over and above the number of

[2023:RJ-JP:19052] (15 of 19) [CW-7978/2022]

vacancies advertised as the recruitment of the candidates in

excess of the notified vacancies is a denial and deprivation of the

constitutional right under Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the

Constitution, of those persons who acquired eligibility for the post

in question in accordance with the statutory rules subsequent to

the date of notification of vacancies.

20. Even the judgments, as relied upon by the learned

counsel for the petitioners, in support of the operation of the

waiting list are contingent on the factum of the availability of

vacancies against the posts so advertised by the Commission. For

example: In Ravindra Purohit (Supra), the Court directed the

State Government to push up those in the waiting list during the

period of its currency, in the event of those in the select list being

offered appointment not joining, subject to vacancies remaining.

Moreover, even in R.S. Mittal (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court

held that subject to the availability of vacancies, a person who has

been selected by the Selection Board cannot be denied

appointment, keeping in view his/her merit position.

21. During the course of arguments, learned Advocate

General categorically submitted that out of the 5000 posts so

advertised by way of the advertisement issued in 2018, all have

been filled in consonance with the selection process carried out by

the RPSC. Moreover, it was account of certain vacancies that the

candidates placed in the waiting list had been given appointment

orders. Therefore, it was conclusively contended that no vacancies

remain as on date, against which the waiting list can be operated

[2023:RJ-JP:19052] (16 of 19) [CW-7978/2022]

to accommodate the aggrieved candidates. In support of the said

submission, an additional affidavit was filed by the State as well,

exhibiting the vacancies to be filled by way of issuance of

appointment orders to select candidates.

22. Therefore, in light of the fact that no vacancies remain

as on date qua the posts advertised by way of the advertisement

issued in the Year 2018, it can be conclusively said that the

operation of the waiting list has become an issue of mere

academic importance, as no accommodation can be granted to the

candidates placed in the waiting list. At this juncture, it would be

pertinent to reiterate the fact that filling up the vacancies over the

notified vacancies is neither permissible nor desirable, for the

reason, that it amounts to improper exercise of power and only in

a rare and exceptional circumstance and in an emergent situation,

such a rule can be deviated and such a deviation is permissible

only after adopting policy decision based on some rational,

otherwise the exercise would be arbitrary. Filling up of vacancies

over the notified vacancies amounts to filling up of future

vacancies and thus, not permissible in law.

23. Even otherwise, secondary to the observations made

herein-above, if the Court were to adjudicate upon the issue of the

operation of the waiting list as on date, then under such an

eventuality, the next inferential measure for this Court would be to

analyze whether the waiting list survives as on date or not. In this

regard, reliance can be placed upon Rule 20 of the Rajasthan

Education Service Rules, 1970. For easy reference, the same is

reiterated herein-under:

[2023:RJ-JP:19052] (17 of 19) [CW-7978/2022]

"20. Recommendations of the Commission:- The Commission shall prepare a list of the candidates, whom they consider suitable for appointment to the post concerned, arranged in order of merit and forward the same to the appointing authority: Provided that the Commission may also to the extent of 50% of the advertised vacancies, keep names of suitable candidates may, on requisition, be recommended in order of merit to the appointing authority within 6 months from the date on which the original list is forwarded by the Commission to the appointing authority."

24. As per Rule 20 of the Rules of 1970, an additional list to

the extent of 50% of the advertised vacancies needs to be

prepared by the Commission, which for all purposes may be

referred to as the waiting list. The Rule further directs that if a

requisition is sent by the State, which is also the appointing

authority, name of the said candidates should be recommended

from the waiting list, in order of merit. The Rule, however,

provides a period, which is called to be the life of the panel. The

said life of the panel subsists for a period of six months from the

date, on which, the original list is forwarded by the Commission to

the State/appointing authority.

25. Therefore, when dealing with the question of the

validity of the operation of the waiting list, this Court is required to

look into the statutory provision in strict terms, especially when,

no other alternate interpretation can be adopted. Accordingly, in

view of the proviso of Rule 20 of the Rules of 1970, the crucial

date to reckon the lifetime of the waiting list is the date on which

the list was forwarded by the Commission to the Appointing

Authority. As per table appended as Annexure R/6, it is made clear

[2023:RJ-JP:19052] (18 of 19) [CW-7978/2022]

that the life span of the waiting list had been expired in the Year

2021 itself, on account of the lapse of the period of six months. As

on date, we are in the Year 2023 and therefore, it cannot be said

that the life span of the waiting list subsists as on date.

26. Lastly, tertiary to the observations made above, it may

be relevant to note that subsequent to the advertisement for the

post of School Lecturer, 2018, the RPSC issued an advertisement

for the post of School Lecturer, 2022, qua which the examination

has already been conducted in the month of October, 2022.

Therefore, at this stage, the prayer of the petitioners regarding

the operation of the waiting list qua the examination conducted for

the post of School Lecturer-2018 cannot be entertained, especially

in light of the fact that no vacancies qua the posts advertised in

the Year 2018 remain as on date coupled with Rule 20 of the

Rajasthan Education Service Rules, 1970.

27. Thus, solely on account of the fact that no vacancies

remain as on date qua the posts advertised by the Commission in

the Year 2018, the judgments cited by the petitioners in the case

of Ravindra Purohit (Supra) and R.S. Mittal (Supra) are

distinguished. Simultaneously, the judgments cited by the learned

Advocate General on the issue of the life and operation of the

waiting list in Gujarat State Dy. Executive (Supra) and M.P.

Electricity Board (Supra) are squarely applicable in the facts

and circumstances of the present petitions.

28. Thus, considering the fact that a waiting list prepared in

pursuance of an examination conducted by the respondent-RPSC

does not furnish a perpetual source of recruitment; that the

[2023:RJ-JP:19052] (19 of 19) [CW-7978/2022]

waiting list is operative only for the contingency that if any of the

selected candidates do not join pursuant to their selection, then

under such an eventuality, persons from the waiting list may be

pushed up for appointment against the vacancy so caused; that

qua the posts so advertised for School Lecturer-2018, no

vacancies remain as on date; that the candidates from the waiting

list prepared against the examination conducted in pursuance of a

specific advertisement, cannot subsequently claim a right of

appointment and/or consideration for future appointments to be

made with respect to a different advertisement; that as per Rule

20 of the Rajasthan Education Service Rules, 1970, the life span of

the waiting list has expired; that subsequent to the advertisement

for the post of School Lecturer, 2018, the RPSC issued an

advertisement for the post of School Lecturer, 2022, qua which

the examination has already been conducted in the month of

October, 2022 and relying upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex

Court as enunciated in Gujarat State Dy. Executive (Supra),

M.P. Electricity Board (Supra), Rakhi Ray (Supra), Raghbir

Chand Sharma (Supra) and Mukul Saikia (Supra), this Court

deems it fit to dismiss the present batch of writ petitions.

29. As a result, the writ petitions are dismissed. Pending

applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(SAMEER JAIN),J

Pooja /226-229, 233

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)