Lastly, reliance is placed upon the ratio encapsulated in the vs Ghanshyam Singh Rathore Vs. The State of Rajasthan and

: Mr. Tanmay Dhand For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitin Jain Ms. Namita Parihar, Dy. G.C. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 11/03/2025

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents invited applications for the post of Chemistry Lecturer (School Education). It is further submitted that the petitioner applied for the said post and has secured approximately 293.48 marks (merit in the reserve list – 28) under the respective category.

2. Further, it is submitted that respondent- RPSC issued a list of selected candidates on 19.09.2012, however, due to non -joining [2025:RJ-JP:11225] (2 of 5) [CW-12869/2013] of certain candidates, second list of selected candidates on

16.01.2013 was issued by the Director, Secretary Education.

3. Furthermore, it is submitted that as petitioner was next in merit, on account of non-joining by certain candidates, his rights have accrued on the vacant seats, therefore, respondents should have considered the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the said post under the respective category.

4. Lastly, reliance is placed upon the ratio encapsulated in the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Manoj Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2024 (3) SCC 563, State of U.P. Vs. Ram Swarup Saroj reported in (2000) 3 SCC 699 and judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of the Court in Ghanshyam Singh Rathore Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Anr. ; S.B. CWP No.2031/1997.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-RPSC has raised preliminary objection qua the maintainability of the petition and submitted that advertisement pertains to the year 2011 and respondent has sent recommendation from the original list on

05.09.2012 to Director, Secondary Education Department and as per Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Education Service Rules, 1970, names of candidates in the reserve list may on requisition be recommended in the order of merit to the appointing authority within a period of six months from the date on which original list is forwarded by the commission to the appointing authority.

6. Further, it is submitted that respondent has not received any requisition from the department to send names from the reserve list and period of six months have already expired. [2025:RJ-JP:11225] (3 of 5) [CW-12869/2013]

7. Additionally, it is submitted that if the commission for any reason was unable to to forward the reserve list to the concerned department within the prescribed period, then commission is debarred from recommending any names from the reserve list.

8. Additionally, while placing reliance upon the judgment titled as Dr. Rakesh Meena vs. RPSC passed in DB SAW No.1572/2017, and judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in State Of Orissa & Anr vs Rajkishore Nanda & Ors., reported in AIR 2010 Supreme Court 2100, it is submitted that no relief can be granted to the candidate in the light of Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Education Service Rules, 1970.

9. Lastly, attention is drawn to the word “may” used in Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Education Service Rules, 1970. The relevant portion of the same is reiterated as below: - Recommendations “20. Commission/Committee/Appointing Authority.- The Commission or the Committee or the Appointing Authority, as the case may be, shall prepare a list of the candidates whom they consider suitable for appointment to the post arranged in the order of merit on the basis of marks obtained in the written examination/interview and forward the same to the Appointing Authority. The Commission or the Committee or the Appointing Authority, as the case may be, shall not recommend any candidate who has failed to obtain a minimum of 40%marks in each of the papers of the competitive examination. Provided that- (i) the percentage fixed as above shall be relaxed by 5% for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes. (ii) the Commission/Committee may also, to the extent of 50% of the advertised vacancies, keep names of suitable candidates on the reserve lists, category wise. The Commission may on requisition, recommend names of such candidates, 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. Heard and considered. [2025:RJ-JP:11225] (4 of 5) [CW-12869/2013]

11. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, upon meticulous scanning of the records, taking of the judgments cited at the Bar, this Court has made the following observations: -

11.1. That an advertisement dated 22.07.2011 was issued by the respondent for the post of Chemistry Lecturer.

11.2. That on 08.05.2012, commission declared the result of the examination and issued the list of successful candidates.

11.3. That petitioner has secured 28th merit in the reserve list.

11.4. That respondent sent a list of selected candidates for appointment on 15.10.2012, however, on account of non-joining of various selected candidates, respondents sent revised list on

15.01.2013.

11.5. That recommendation as per Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Education Service Rules, 1970, no names can be recommended from the reserve list after six months from the date on which original list is forwarded by the commission to the Government.

11.6 That judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are on distinct factual matrix.

12. In pursuance of the contentions noted insofar, this Court deems it apposite to place reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in State of Orissa & Anr. v. Raj Kishore Nanda & Ors. reported in (2010) 6 SCC 777, Girdhar Kumar Dadhich Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2009) 2 SCC 706, Union of India v. B. Valluvan reported in (2006) 8 SCC 686 and Raj Rishi Mehra & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2013) 12 SCC 243, and the circulars issued by the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Personnel dated 19.07.2001 bearing No. F.7(2)/DOP/A-2/81 Pt. and [2025:RJ-JP:11225] (5 of 5) [CW-12869/2013] Øekad i-7 ¼2½ dkfeZd@d&2@81 ikVZ dated 13.01.2016 passed by jktLFkku ljdkj dkfeZd ¼d&2½ foHkkx, whereby it is made unambiguous that qua the selection process for any public service examination, the waiting/reserved list lapses after a span of six months from the date of its issuance, and if appointments are already made, then no judicial interference can be made at a belated stage.

13. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed. JKP/89 (SAMEER JAIN),J