HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT

JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1727 / 2015
Dr Rakesh Meena son of Shri J.R. Meena aged about 27 years, by
caste Meena, resident of B-13, Tirupati Nagar, Jagatpura, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission through its Secretary,
Rajasthan Service Commission, Ajmer (Rajasthan).
2. State of Rajasthan through its Principal Secretary, Ayurved and
Indian Medicines, Ayurved Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Govt.
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Homeopathic Medical Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur-
7, Everest Colony, Lal Kothi Tonk Road, Jaipur-15.
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Soni with Mr. Vishal Soni
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.F. Baig
Mr. Parikshit Singh, Dy.G.C.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
REPORTABLE Judgment
Judgment Reserved on : 02/05/2017

Judgment Pronounced on : 28/06/2017

The present writ petition has been filed under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, praying that the impugned action

of the respondents for not giving appointment to the petitioner as

Homeopathic Chikitsadhikari be quashed and set aside and the

respondent Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter

called as ‘RPSC’) be directed to recommend the name of the

petitioner to the State Government for appointment as

Homeopathic Chikitsadhikari, as the said post has remained

vacant due to non-joining of selected candidate Mr. Hanuman

(D.B. SAW/1572/2017 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 14/03/2020 at 09:30:55 PM)
 (2 of 18)
[CW-1727/2015]

Meena, who like the petitioner also belonged to the Scheduled

Tribe Category.

Briefly stated, the petitioner is a member of Scheduled

Tribe Category. The petitioner had completed graduation in

Homoeopathic Medical Sciences in the year 2010. Thereafter, he

completed his internship and was registered with the Rajasthan

State Board of Homoeopathic Medicine, Jaipur and also with

Central Council of Homoeopathy.

The respondent RPSC on 8.3.2011 had issued an

advertisement (Annexure-5) inviting online applications for 43

posts of Homeopathic Chikitsadhikari. The petitioner being

qualified, applied for the said post and vide letter dated

23.11.2012 (Annexure-6) was called for the interview. On

14.12.2012, the result of the interview was declared and the

petitioner was placed at serial No.16 in the Reserve/Waiting List.

The name of the petitioner surfaced at No.1 in the

Reserve/Waiting List, in the category of Scheduled Tribe

Candidates.

The selection made by RPSC for the post of

Homeopathic Chikitsadhikari was challenged in the writ petition

titled as Deepak Najkani vs. State & Ors., SBCWP

No.689/2013. Initially, the court had granted stay against the

appointments but later on the stay was modified and same was

confined to one post.

It is pleaded in the writ petition that the petitioner

learnt later that one successful candidate Mr. Hanuman Meena,

who belonged to Scheduled Tribe, had not joined and thus, one

(D.B. SAW/1572/2017 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 14/03/2020 at 09:30:55 PM)
 (3 of 18)
[CW-1727/2015]

post in the category of Scheduled Tribe remained vacant. The

petitioner immediately filed an application under the Right to

Information Act and upon information furnished by the

respondents, learnt that Mr. Hanuman Meena the selected

candidate, had not joined even though extension for time to join

was granted to him. To fortify the above submission, attention of

court has been drawn to Annexure-9 and 10. Vide Annexure-10,

the State Government on 26.7.2013 informed the petitioner that

Mr. Hanuman Meena inspite of extension had not joined his place

of posting. The petitioner immediately approached the

respondents and requested them that he be appointed as

Homeopathic Chikitsadhikari against the post which remained

vacant due to non-joining of Mr. Hanuman Meena.

Aggrieved against the action of the respondents not to

permit the petitioner to join the said post, which had become

vacant due to non-joining of Mr. Hanuman Meena, the petitioner

filed SBCWP No.778/2014. The said writ petition was decided on

27.1.2014 by the co-ordinate Bench by passing the following

order:-

“Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that

petitioner has become entitled for appointment on the post
of Homeopathic Chikitsadhikari by virtue of the fact that
the last candidate in the category of Scheduled Tribe i.e.
Shri Hanuman Meena has not joined despite extension
granted to him. Name of the petitioner stood at S.No.1 in
the reserved list of S.T. Category candidates. Petitioner
represented the respondents, but he has been informed by
communication dated 31.12.2013 (Annexure-13) that the
matter is under active consideration of the Government.

Having regard to the fact that since the respondents have

(D.B. SAW/1572/2017 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 14/03/2020 at 09:30:55 PM)
 (4 of 18)
[CW-1727/2015]

not taken a final view of the matter whether or not to

operate the reserved list, this Court does not deem it
appropriate to directly entertain the writ petition. However,
respondent no.1 is directed to take final view of the matter
within four weeks from the date appropriate
representation is made by the petitioner before him.

With that direction, the writ petition is disposed of. ”

The petitioner in pursuance of above order, on

11.2.2014 filed a representation. The said representation was not

decided and consequently, the petitioner filed a contempt petition

i.e. S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.655/2014. In the said

contempt petition, the respondent no.1 submitted order dated

20.11.2014 (Annexure-14). In the impugned order dated

20.11.2014, it was recorded that the State Government had

requested Secretary, RPSC, to forward name of the next person in

the Reserve/Waiting List due to non-joining of Mr. Hanuman

Meena. The Secretary, RPSC, informed that as per Circular dated

19.7.2001 issued by the Government, the period of six months

after vacation of stay by the High Court came to an end on

28.11.2013 and hence, Reserve/Waiting List cannot be operated.

Therefore, the representation filed by the petitioner was rejected.

On 9.1.2015, the contempt petition bearing SBCCP No.655/2014

was dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench by passing the following

order:-

“Contempt of the order dated 27.01.2014, passed by this Court

is alleged in this contempt petition. Therein this Court had
directed as under :
“Having regard to the fact that since the respondents have
not taken a final view of the matter whether or not to
operate the reserved list, this Court does not deem it
appropriate to directly entertain the writ petition. However,
respondent No.1 is directed to take final view of the matter

(D.B. SAW/1572/2017 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 14/03/2020 at 09:30:55 PM)
 (5 of 18)
[CW-1727/2015]

within four weeks from the date appropriate representation

is made by the petitioner before him.”

Reply to the petition has been filed. It has been

submitted that in pursuance to the order passed by this
Court on 27.01.2014, the petitioner's representation was
considered and a speaking order was passed on
20.011.2014 whereunder the State Government took an
extremely liberal view of the matter even though over six
months have elapsed since the declaration of the select list
for the post concerned and appointment of the selected
candidates by referring the matter to the RPSC on the
question as to whether the reserved list could be made
operative. Thereupon the RPSC appears to have considered
the matter and again reiterated that over six months had
elapsed since the declaration of the select list for the post
concerned and appointment being made thereunder,
whereupon in terms of the State Government circular dated
19.07.2001 the time frame for operating the reserved list
had expired. Even though so recording it was also observed
that the matter would be further considered by the Full
Board of RPSC.

Mr. Rajendra Soni, appearing with Mr. Mohit Soni, for

the petitioner submits that the consideration by the State
Government even though complete as directed by this
Court, yet the consideration by the RPSC remained
incomplete and that constitutes contempt.

Heard.

I am afraid that there is no force in the aforesaid

contention as the matter has been considered by the State
to which alone a direction was issued under the Court's
order dated 27.01.2014. The matter now rests with the
RPSC for further consideration by the “Full Board” even
though a prima facie view against the operation of the
reserved list after lapsing of over six months from the date
of declaration of select list and even appointments
thereunder has been taken. Merely because the matter was
kept for further consideration of the Full Board of RPSC,
non-compliance with the order dated 27.01.2014, passed

(D.B. SAW/1572/2017 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 14/03/2020 at 09:30:55 PM)
 (6 of 18)
[CW-1727/2015]

by this Court cannot at all be made out.

The contempt petition is without force.

Dismissed. Notices discharged.

The petitioner, if so advised, shall however be free to

challenge the decision of the RPSC not to operate the
reserved list qua the petitioner at his own risk and costs.”

Thereafter, the petitioner on 21.1.2015, issued a notice

for demand of justice. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present

writ petition.

The co-ordinate Bench had issued notice and in

response thereto, the respondents have filed the reply. In the

reply filed, the respondents have reiterated that since as per

Circular issued by the Government, the period of six months

elapsed, therefore, Reserve/Waiting List cannot remain in vogue.

It is specifically stated in the reply that the validity of the period of

six months of the Reserve/Waiting List expired on 10.8.2013 and

the respondent Commission in its meeting held on 28.1.2015

decided not to exclude the period of litigation for extending the

validity to the Reserve/Waiting List beyond period of six months.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon

the case of Ghanshyam Singh Rathore vs. The State of

Rajasthan & Anr., 2012(2) WLC 443, to contend that where

the petitioner had approached the High Court within two and a

half months, mere expiry of period of six months will not defeat

the right of the petitioner to seek appointment qua the post

applied. Para 17 of the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate

Bench in case of Ghanshyam Singh Rathore (supra) reads as

under:-

(D.B. SAW/1572/2017 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 14/03/2020 at 09:30:55 PM)
 (7 of 18)
[CW-1727/2015]

“The respondents, in the present case, having advertised

54 vacancies, called 54 candidates for Interview and, out
of them, two did not offer themselves for appointment;
there was no conscious decision of the respondents not to
fill up the advertised vacancies; rather conduct of the
respondents reflect that they decided to fill up all the
advertised vacancies, when two vacancies remained
unfilled on account of two candidates having not offered
themselves for appointment and despite the claim made
by the petitioner to give him appointment there against,
action of the respondents not to give him appointment
cannot be approved in law. The petitioner in the present
case, when he came to know about appointment only of
52 candidates against 54 advertised vacancies and that he
was placed at Serial No.1 in the waiting-list, is right in
claiming the appointment against the unfilled vacancies.
The factor that he approached this Court within 4 days
after making representation by him to the respondents,
cannot be taken against him; more-so, since the petitioner
within two-and-a-half months of the appointments,
approached this Court and his writ petition was
entertained. Mere expiry of the waiting-list during
pendency of the writ petition, the validity period whereof
was six months, also cannot be taken as a factor against
him if the writ petition was not decided within that time.
Even then his rights will have to be determined on the
basis of law and facts as available on the day on which the
writ petition was filed.”

A perusal of the judgment rendered in the case of

Ghanshyam Singh Rathore (supra), reveals that the petitioner in

that case had approached the High Court within period of two and

a half months of the appointment made and it was held that

merely because the High Court could not decide the writ petition,

it cannot be said that the validity period of six months of

Reserve/Waiting List will expire.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied

(D.B. SAW/1572/2017 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 14/03/2020 at 09:30:55 PM)
 (8 of 18)
[CW-1727/2015]

upon the judgment rendered by another co-ordinate Bench of this

Court in the case of Bal Krishan Sharma vs. State & Ors,

SBCWP No.1517/2008, decided on 22.12.2010 and urged that

the period for which due to interim order granted by the court

Reserve/Waiting List could not operate, the said period is to be

excluded. The operative portion of the judgment rendered in the

case of Bal Krishan Sharma (supra) reads as under:-

“However, in instant case, grievance is only in regard to

vacancies duly advertised which remained unfilled on
account of non-joining of successful candidates and the
requisition was sent by appointing authority. On the
contrary, it has been consistently held by the Court that
reserve list can always be used if advertised vacancies
having remained unfilled provided requisition is sent by the
Government within a period of six months as provided
under Rules.

In K.Thulaseedharan Vs. Kerala State PSC Trivandrum

(2007(6) SCC 190), the Apex Court observed that validity
of reserve list could not have been extended after its period
having expired. But if appointing authority was precluded
from giving appointment out of select list and on that
count, requisition could not have been sent to the PSC and
it has already been observed that act of the Court should
not cause any prejudice to the litigant, certainly the period
during which interim order remained operative deserves to
be excluded from consideration of period of six months
provided U/r 20 and if that be so, indisputably requisition
sent by appointing authority was within six months from
main select list forwarded on 18/04/2007.

This Court has taken note of letter dt.05/12/2007

wherein State Government itself clarified in an unequivocal
terms that since six successful candidates out of advertised
vacancies have not joined whose appointments have been
cancelled, against which requisition was being sent calling
for six names (4 male & 2 female in general category) for

(D.B. SAW/1572/2017 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 14/03/2020 at 09:30:55 PM)
 (9 of 18)
[CW-1727/2015]

giving them appointment against advertised vacancies

which remained unfilled in course of life of reserve list
which subsisted due to interim order being in operation
from 26/04/2007 to 17/07/2007, deserves to be excluded
while consideration of six months time provided U/r 20 of
Rules, 1970. In the present facts and circumstances, action
of respondent PSC was arbitrary and is violative of Art.14
of the Constitution of India.

Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby

allowed. Letter dt.22/12/2007 (Schedule B) of respondent-
PSC is hereby quashed & set aside. Respondent-1 is
directed to send names to the State Government pursuant
to its requisition dt.05/12/2007 (Schedule A) and the State
Government is further directed to consider candidature of
petitioner and of other applicants eligible for appointment
pursuant to selection made in reference to advertisement
No.3/2004-05 dt.18/08/2004 in accordance with law.
Respondents should ensure compliance of this order within
three months. ”

A further reliance has been placed upon the judgment

rendered by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Alka

Agrawal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., SBCWP No. 13084/2011,

decided on 17.3.2016. In the case of Alka Agrawal (supra), the co-

ordinate Bench held as under:-

“21. In the case of Sat Pal (supra), the Hon'ble Apex

Court of the land while explaining the commencement of
operation of waiting list in no uncertain terms observed
that a waiting list commences to operate, after the
vacancies for which the recruitment process has been
conducted have been filled up. From the fact situation that
emerges in the instant case at hand, it is evident that the
recruitment process conducted for filling up the 26
vacancies in fact did not conclude uptill 23rd February,
2011, for 8 vacancies were never filled up. It is also
relevant to take note of the fact that the last date to
assume the charge to the last candidate out of the main

(D.B. SAW/1572/2017 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 14/03/2020 at 09:30:55 PM)
 (10 of 18)
[CW-1727/2015]

list was indicated as 23rd February, 2011, therefore, the

stand of the respondent-Commission, in declining the
requisition of the State Government to forward the names
of the candidates from the waiting list as is evident from
communication dated 17th March, 2011, on the pretext of
validity period of the reserve list expired on 19th February,
2011; is absolutely baseless and without any factual
foundation. This Court is not oblivious of the fact that even
a selected candidate in the main list would have no
indefeasible right for appointment even if the vacancy
existed, but in the instant case at hand, the State-
respondents themselves with an intentional to operate the
reserve list, which allows a room to the appointing
authority to fill up the vacancies during subsistence of the
waiting list has been declined by the respondent-
Commission on a technical ground without any logic or
reasoning in support thereof.

22. It is not the case of the respondents that there has

been no requisition made by the appointing authority for
appointment from the reserve/wait list. So also it is not
the case of the State-respondents that there was any
decision for not filling up the vacancies for reasons
sustainable in law. The selection process would come to an
end only when the vacancies under recruitment process
are filled up and the waiting list has lapsed for the
statutory period provided under the relevant rules.

23. On being queried, the learned counsel for the State-

respondents denied of any recruitment process undertaken
after the advertisement involved herein. The appointing
authority cannot ignore the select panel or decline the
appointments on its whims and fancy. For no reason has
been spelt out in the counter-affidavit for not proceedings
with the recruitment process rather communication dated
17th March, 2011, reflects the intention and proves that
fact that the State-respondents did proceed with the
recruitment process for 8 vacancies, which could not filled
as the selected candidates in the main list did not assume
the charge.

(D.B. SAW/1572/2017 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 14/03/2020 at 09:30:55 PM)
 (11 of 18)
[CW-1727/2015]

24. For the reasons and discussions aforesaid, the writ

application succeeds and is hereby allowed.

25. The State-respondents are directed to consider the

case of the petitioner for appointment, if she is otherwise
found suitable.

26. Needless to observe that in case, the petitioner is

found suitable for appointment, the appointment would
relate back to the same recruitment process in accordance
with the Rules and service conditions of the cadre on
notional basis. Her seniority will be determined below the
last selected candidate. The respondents would ensure
compliance of the order within six weeks from the date a
certified copy of the order is made available to them.

27. No costs.”

A perusal of the judgments relied reveal that the

judgment in the case of Ghanshyam Singh Rathore (supra), Bal

Krishan Sharma (supra) and Alka Agrawal (supra) are judgments

on facts of each case. The said judgments in no way have laid the

ratio of law which ought to be followed in each and every case.

However, it may be noted that a learned Single Judge

of this Court summed up entire case law regarding validity of

Reserve/Waiting List in the case of Nand Ram Vs. State of

Rajasthan and Anr., RLW 2004 (1) Raj 435, as under:-

“(13). As per the case of the respondents, the merit/select

list was prepared on 25.1.1997 and as per proviso (ii) of
Rule 274 (i) of the Rules of 1996, it shall remain valid for a
period of one year i.e. upto 25.1.1998 and thus, the term
of the select list had already expired before the petitioner
submitted his representation Annex. 3 dated 1.6.1998.

(14). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of UP and Ors. v.

Harish Chandra and Ors. (1), has observed that candidates
seeking appointment after expiry of period of select list had
no right.

(15). In Rajendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (2),

(D.B. SAW/1572/2017 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 14/03/2020 at 09:30:55 PM)
 (12 of 18)
[CW-1727/2015]

a Division Bench of this Court observed that a finality is to

be attached to the selection process. It cannot be allowed
to remain open and continuing. If that be so, rights of
candidates who acquire eligibility subsequently will be
adversely affected and that will be violative of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India. Selection process has a
life and it cannot be extended except as permitted by
relevant service Rules.

(16). In State of Bihar and Ors. v. Md. Kalimuddin and Ors.

(3), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that since Rule
provides that select list shall be valid for one year from the
date of approval of project by Select Committee, therefore,
continuance of list beyond one year is illegal and even the
High Court cannot continue list beyond one year unless its
constitutional validity is challenged.
(17). In M.P. Electricity Board v. Virendra Kumar Sharma
(4), it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that denial
of appointment to a selectee of such list after expiry of the
panel on the basis of the said circular did not call for
interference by the High Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
further observed that rational behind providing of
validity/currency of panel for a particular period is to
consider new candidates who may be better or more
qualified.

(18). In J. Ashok Kumar v. State of A.P. and Ors. (5), the

Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that selection having
already been over and the selected candidates having been
appointed, no relief could be granted to the rest
candidates.

(19). This Court in Tara Chand Bhati v. State of Rajasthan

and Ors. (6), has observed that the panel of selected
candidates cannot be valid for indefinite period. Moreover,
impaneled candidates in any event cannot have a right
against future vacancies.

On waiting list

(20). On waiting list, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay

Bhattacharjee v. Union of India (7), observed that if the
name of the candidate has appeared in the waiting list, it

(D.B. SAW/1572/2017 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 14/03/2020 at 09:30:55 PM)
 (13 of 18)
[CW-1727/2015]

does not confer any right of appointment on him and fresh

recruitment can therefore be resorted to without appointing
such candidate.

(21). It is now well settled by series of decisions of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court that the empanelment of the
candidate in the select list confers no right on the
candidates to appointment on account of being so
empanelled. What to talk of reserve list, even a person,
whose name is found in select list, had no right of
appointment.
(22). Thus, it can be concluded that where the Rule
specially provides that select list would be lapsed after a
period of one year, this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India cannot give direction to make
appointment after the expiry of period of select list.

(23). Furthermore, a select list once made does not exist

forever. It gets exhausted on completion of the selection
process which was held pursuant to a particular
advertisement or invitation. In other words, it can be said
that the life of a select list will get exhausted if the
requisite candidates are selected for the specified vacancies
and appointments made accordingly or if not so selected or
appointed then on the expiry of the period prescribed. If
the life has expired then the Court cannot direct such a
non-existent list to continue.

(24). Keeping the above law in mind, if the case of the

present petitioner is examined, it has no merit at all.

(25). In the present case, the select list was prepared on

25.1.1997 and proviso (ii) of Rule 274 (1) of the Rules of
1996 clearly provides that the life of select list would be
one year and thus, the life of select list had expired on
25.1.1998 and when the life of select list had already
expired, therefore, the petitioner had no right whatsoever
to seek appointment on the basis of waiting list and apart
from this, the petitioner made representation through
Annex. 3 on 1.6.1998 and at that time, the period of select
list had already expired.

(26). So far as the case of Gurender Singh is concerned,

(D.B. SAW/1572/2017 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 14/03/2020 at 09:30:55 PM)
 (14 of 18)
[CW-1727/2015]

that case can be distinguished from the facts of the present

case as in that case, the representation was made before
the expiry of period of select list, while in the present case,
the representation was filed by the petitioner through
Annex. 3 on 1.6.1998 i.e. after expiry of period of select
list.

(27). So far as the ruling relied upon by the learned

counsel for the petitioner in Purushottam v. Chairman,
M.S.E.B. and Anr. (8), where it was held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that duly selected candidate could not be
denied appointment on the pretext that panel's term had
expired, is concerned, that proposition is altogether
different from the position of law of the present case. It is
made clear that if a duly selected candidate was not given
appointment because of some suspicion or quarries and
that suspicion becomes over after the expiry of term of
panel, in such a situation, in the case of Purushottam
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the
expiry of term of panel would not come in way for
appointment of such candidate. This is not the position in
the present case. Therefore, the law laid down in the case
of Purushottam (supra), would not be helpful to the
petitioner.
(28). For the reasons stated above, the petitioner is not
entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India and thus, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.”

Thus, the legal position from the case law cited, can be

summed up as under:-

(a) Selected candidate has no indefesible right to compel to the

appointing authority to issue appointment letter. However, a right

of a selected candidate cannot be denied on a whim and caprice.

(b) That the period where due to issuance of any interim order by

the court Reserve/Waiting List could not operate, is to be excluded

from the consideration.

(c) That a candidate in the waiting/reserve list, upon non-joining

(D.B. SAW/1572/2017 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 14/03/2020 at 09:30:55 PM)
 (15 of 18)
[CW-1727/2015]

of selected candidate, if approach court within shelf life of waiting

or reserve list, then his right shall not be defeated merely because

court could not decide the case.

(d) As held by this Court in the case of Pushpendra Agarwal vs.

State of Rajasthan & Anr., SBCWP No.3569/2015, decided

on 20.10.2016, the Reserve/Waiting List shall operate from the

date when the selected candidate had not joined. Therefore, the

period of six months to give effect to the Reserve/Waiting List has

to commence from the date when selected candidate had not

joined.

(e) The State Government in the larger interest can shelve entire

selection including the Reserve/Waiting List to have benefit of

human resource and talent so that new candidates who are better

or more qualified can be recruited to serve the State.

On the touchstone of above principles, this Court shall

consider that claim of the petitioner that he be granted

appointment beyond period of six months regarding validity of the

Reserve/Waiting List to the petitioner, due to non-joining of

selected candidate Mr. Hanuman Meena.

In the present case, the select list was issued by the

respondents on 14.12.2012. The name of the petitioner on

14.12.2012 was also included in the Reserve/Waiting List.

Extension was granted to Mr. Hanuman Meena on 29.7.2013. After

the period of extension, he had not joined and on 6.12.2013, post

became vacant. The petitioner immediately filed writ petition and

the said writ petition was decided on 27.1.2014 by directing the

respondent no.1 to take a final view within four weeks upon filing

(D.B. SAW/1572/2017 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 14/03/2020 at 09:30:55 PM)
 (16 of 18)
[CW-1727/2015]

of representation by the petitioner.

This Court may observe here that right of the petitioner

stood crystalized on 6.12.2013 when Mr. Hanuman Meena had not

joined. The period of six months had to operate from the said date

and the petitioner within time had approached this Court. The

claim of the petitioner was not decided by this Court and the

petitioner was relegated to file a representation to respondents.

The petitioner accepted the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench

on 27.1.2014.

The directions obtained by a litigant to approach the

respondents for redressal of the grievances by filing

representation cannot extend shelf life or validity to the period of

Reserve/Waiting List. The petitioner abandoned his right on

27.1.2014 when he accepted the decision of the learned Single

Judge to approach the respondents for redressal of the

grievances. The representation filed by the petitioner was rejected

on 29.11.2014. Merely because representation of the petitioner

was pending and same was not decided by the authorities will not

extend validity to the Reserve/Waiting List, which stood

extinguished within a period of six months. It is settled legal

position that pendency of representation or non decision thereof

shall not cover the delay and latches. It shall also not condone

limitation.

The time has come when litigant aware of his rights

must stand up and urge before the court that his case be decided

on merits instead of disposing of his case by enabling him to

resort to filing of representation. Once the petitioner accepted the

(D.B. SAW/1572/2017 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 14/03/2020 at 09:30:55 PM)
 (17 of 18)
[CW-1727/2015]

order dated 27.1.2014, and agreed to file a representation, he had

accepted that his claim be considered by the respondents and

thus, had abandoned his claim or right, which he could lawfully

and legitimately urge and insist before the court of law.

The orders passed by the court that the representation

be decided, harm more a litigant and the acceptance of such

decision by the litigant operate to the peril of the litigant, as filing

of representation and delay caused to decide the same, will

neither cure delay and latches nor shall revive the cause of action,

which became stale being beyond period of limitation.

Merely because the representation was not decided

within the stipulated period, this Court relying upon the case of

Tara Chand Bhati vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1998 (4)

SCT 521, cannot hold that panel of selected candidates shall

remain valid for indefinite period.

In Sanjay Bhattacharya vs. Union of India & Ors,

1997 (s) SCT 339, it has been held that merely because name of

the petitioner had surfaced in the Reserve/Waiting List, it does not

confer any right of appointment in him.

Since no indefesible right has accrued to the petitioner,

because his name had surfaced in the Reserve/Waiting List, the

State Government cannot be denied their right to scout for the

best talent or human resource, which is now available after lapse

of four years.

Thus, no fault can be found with the action of the

respondent RPSC not to operate Reserve/Waiting List, after

specified period as it is always better that the individual good

(D.B. SAW/1572/2017 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 14/03/2020 at 09:30:55 PM)
 (18 of 18)
[CW-1727/2015]

should make way for larger good of the society and citizens must

now get better homeopath after issuance of fresh advertisement.

Since the petitioner is not having any indefesible or

vested right to insist that the State must fill the vacancy from

Reserve/Waiting List, which was prepared four years ago, on

14.12.2012, there is no merit in the present petition, and the

same is dismissed.

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)J.

Mak/-

(D.B. SAW/1572/2017 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 14/03/2020 at 09:30:55 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)