JUDGMENT 1. - All the above-mentioned writ petitions have been filed regarding filling-up thirteen seats of Statistical officers, on which some officers are working on ad hoc basis. The petitioners, who appeared for appointments to the posts of Statistical officers as direct recruits and their names were placed in the reserve list, have prayed that they should be given appointment to the post of Statistical officer, on which, promotees, by way of ad hoc appointment are working. The petitioners working as ad hoc appointees, by way of promotion, have prayed that they have subsequently been selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), held in the year, 1989, therefore, they should be allowed to continue on this post and have further prayed that the petitioners, whose names have been shown in the reserve list, have no right to file writ petitions. Therefore, ft will be appropriate to dispose of these petitions by a single order. 2. For the purposes of factual position, reference will be made to Writ Petition No. 187/85. 3. It is submitted by Mr. R.C. Joshi and Mr. Ajay Rastogi, learned vvmnsel, who represent such petitioners, who appeared for selection by way of direct recruitment and were also working on the lower posts in the concerned Department, that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) invited applications for direct recruitment to the post of Statistical officer vide its advertisement No. 6/83-84 (Ex.1). They appeared in the written test and were called for interview on August 18, 1984. The RPSC, vide Ex.2 dated August 21, 1984, issued a list of twenty candidates who were selected and their names were recommended to the Government for appointment on the post of Satistical officer. These persons have been appointed on the said post by the Government of Rajasthan vide order dated January 19, 1985 (Ex.4). The RPSC, vide Ex.2 dated August 21, 1984, issued a list of twenty candidates who were selected and their names were recommended to the Government for appointment on the post of Satistical officer. These persons have been appointed on the said post by the Government of Rajasthan vide order dated January 19, 1985 (Ex.4). Another list (Ex.2A) of the same date was issued, which consisted of ten names, which were kept by the RPSC in the reserve list and the same was to be sent to-the Government, if a requisition was received within a period of six months, as laid down in proviso to Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Economics & Statistical Service Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the Rules, 1958'), it is further submitted that the petitioners, whose names have been included in the reserve list, were not appointed, since the persons appointed on urgent/temporary/ad hoc basis, by way of promotion, against the vacancies of direct recruitment quota, resisted these appointments. It is also submitted that prior to amendment in the Rules, 1958 as provided under Sub-rule (b) of Rule 8, vacancies for the post of Statistical officer occurring in a year were required to be filled up by promotion from amongst Statistical Assistants by selection through RPSC in the proportion of 1:2, i.e. 33 per cent by promotion and 67 per cent by direct recruitment. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 25 provided that if the Selection Committee is satisfied that in a particular year suitable persons are not available for appointment by promotion, the vacancies existing in that year may be filled up by selection. This sub-clause was amended by notification dated May 27, 1983 and it was provided that If the Government is satisfied in consultation with RPSC that suitable persons are not available for appointment by either method of recruitment in a particular year, the appointment by other method in relaxation of the prescribed proportion, may be made in the same manner as specified in that rule. By further amendment vide Notification dated October 17, 1984, the proportion 1:2 was changed to 1:1 and, thus, 50 per cent appointments were required to be made by promotion and fifty per cent by direct recruitment. This amendment was given retrospective effect w.e.f. April 1, 1981 (Ex.5). By further amendment vide Notification dated October 17, 1984, the proportion 1:2 was changed to 1:1 and, thus, 50 per cent appointments were required to be made by promotion and fifty per cent by direct recruitment. This amendment was given retrospective effect w.e.f. April 1, 1981 (Ex.5). It is also submitted that after 1976-77, no appointments by direct recruitment were made on the post of Statistical officer, even though vacancies have been advertised through RPSC. No. DPC was held even for according promotion to the post of Statistical officer, but it was held only In the year, 1981, on the basis of which orders dated November 16, 1981 were passed for appointments on the post of Statistical officer by way of promotion. In this manner, after 1977, upto December 31, 1980, 71 appointments have been made by promotion, whereas no appointment was made by way of direct recruitment. It is pointed out that as per the prescribed Rules, only 24 appointments could have been made ^ by promotion and seventy four appointments should have been made by direct recruitment. It is further pointed out that, as is evident from Exs. 6 to 13, apart from the above-mentioned 71 regular appointments given to promotees, thirteen Statistical officers are continuing on ad hoc basis. In fact, the petitioners, whose names are Included in the reserve list, are entitled to be appointed on these posts. It is further pointed out that the State, In its return, has admitted that 52 posts, which were otherwise meant for direct recruitment, were filled up by way of promotion and, therefore, it is submitted that till fifty two seats are now filled up by way of direct recruitment, no appointments can be given by way of promotion. It is also pointed out that since the period of six months was to expire, this Court directed the Government to call for the reserve list from the RPSC, which is now lying with the Government. 4. It is submitted by Mr. C.K. Garg, learned Additional Advocate-General, for the State, Mr. S.K. Keshote, Mr. Paras Kuhad and Mr. Rajendra Soni learned Counsel, that the petitioners, whose names have been included In the reserve list, have no right to approach this Court by way of filing writ petition, as no right for appointment has vested in them, since their names were not requisitioned by the Government for appointment. S.K. Keshote, Mr. Paras Kuhad and Mr. Rajendra Soni learned Counsel, that the petitioners, whose names have been included In the reserve list, have no right to approach this Court by way of filing writ petition, as no right for appointment has vested in them, since their names were not requisitioned by the Government for appointment. Thus, there is no infringement of any legal right of such petitioners. Apart from this, there were twenty seats, regarding which, twenty names were recommended by RPSC, who have already been appointed. Therefore, The reserve list, in fact, does not exist any more. It is further submitted that the RPSC was consulted while giving promotions on the post of Statistical officer, which were otherwise to be filled up by way of direct recruitment. It is also submitted that these promotions have not been challenged, nor such persons have been made parties in these writ petitions. It is contended that merely because certain promotions were given on such seats, which were otherwise to be filled up by way of direct recruitment, the petitioners have no right to claim that no further appointments may be made by way of promotion, till 52 posts are filled up by way of direct recruitment. It is further contended that as per Rules, 1958, every year out of the available posts, 50 per cent posts have to be filled up by way of promotion and fifty per cent by direct recruitment. However, in the relevant years all the twenty posts have been filled up by way of direct recruitment, but, in fact, only ten posts could have been filled up by direct recruitment and ten should have been filled up by way of promotion. It is, therefore, contended that, ten more posts have been filled up by direct recruitment which, in fact, should have been filled up by way of promotion. It is given out that persons, who were given promotions on urgent/temporary basis have faced DPC, held in the year, 1989 and it has been stated on oath by them that they have been selected by DPC. However, the result has not been officially declared, on account of stay order passed by this Court. Moreover, these posts do not belong to the relevant year, for which selections were made by the RPSC. However, the result has not been officially declared, on account of stay order passed by this Court. Moreover, these posts do not belong to the relevant year, for which selections were made by the RPSC. It is further given out that while forwarding the list of selected candidates, Experts associated with the RPSC for selection of candidates have observed that some of the candidates were found to be good, however, In general, proficiency in the subject was less than satisfactory. The reserve list was, therefore, prepared as this was requirement of the Rules, 1958. The reserve list has been called by the Government under the directions of this Court, which was received on February 12, 1985. The persons, who were reverted consequent to appointment of twenty selected candidates, have also filed the writ petitions. It is also given out that the RPSC Vide its letter dated March 1, 1979 (Anx. R/16) informed that suitable persons, having prescribed qualifications, were not available, therefore, it suggested for amendment in the qualifications and, accordingly, the same were amended. Thereafter, ad hoc appointments were made on the posts of Statistical officers, keeping in view exigencies of the Government work. It is submitted that regarding thirteen persons, who were continuing on ad hoc basis'as Statistical officers, concurrence of the RPSC, as required under Rules, 1958, was obtained. One of the persons namely, K.A. Maheshwari, who was given ad hoc appointment filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 332/85, at Principal Seat of the High Court, Jodhpur, in which a stay order dated February 8, 1985, was passed to the effect that his reversion shall not be given effect, without considering his case for regular promotion to the post of Statistical officer (Anx. R/17). It is pointed out that 52 posts of direct recruitment quota were filled up by promotion on the recommendation of review DPC held on September 13, 1983. It is further pointed out that these twenty vacancies, on which direct recruits have been appointed, are regarding the years 1981-82. It is also given out that out of 19 ad hoc appointees, who were allowed to continue after obtaining concurrence from RPSC, six were subsequently reverted and thirteen persons are continuing. It is further pointed out that these twenty vacancies, on which direct recruits have been appointed, are regarding the years 1981-82. It is also given out that out of 19 ad hoc appointees, who were allowed to continue after obtaining concurrence from RPSC, six were subsequently reverted and thirteen persons are continuing. It is also pointed out that out of six persons, four have filed writ petitions, details of which have been given in para 7 of the return and have obtained stay orders against their reversion. It is submitted that if the posts as they fall vacant in the subsequent years are not filled up in accordance with the Rules, 1958, till fifty two posts are filled by way of direct recruitment, it will be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Eligible persons in the respective years have right to be considered for appointments. 5. We have heard both the parties and gone through the documents on record. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners, whose names have been included in the reserve list, have no right to file a writ petition with a prayer that a mandamus may be issued for their appointment. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that for the years, 1981-82, there were, in all, twenty vacancies. As per the amended Rules, these vacancies had to be filled-up in ratio of 50 per cent by way of promotion and fifty per cent by direct recruitment. However, all the twenty posts have been filled up by direct recruitment. It is admitted position that the Government has filled up all the twenty posts as per the main list sent by the RPSC. The State Government did not call for the reserve list from the RPSC. However, on an application made by some of the petitioners, a direction was given by this Court to the Government to call for the reserve list from the RPSC, which has been done, but no orders have been passed on the same. In fact, the reserve list is called at the discretion of the Government only when some of the posts remain un-filled for any reason, may be on account of any candidate not joining the post, inspite of his selection. No such situation has arisen in the matter under consideration. In fact, the reserve list is called at the discretion of the Government only when some of the posts remain un-filled for any reason, may be on account of any candidate not joining the post, inspite of his selection. No such situation has arisen in the matter under consideration. Apart from this, it may be stated that the Government has discretion to keep any post vacant and there is no legal right vested in a candidate to claim appointment against the unfilled vacant post. It is admitted position that no person from the reserve list has been appointed as such, there is no question of any hostile discriminatory treatment to the petitioners, whose names have been included in the reserve list and there is no question of any violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The reserve list has to be prepared In accordance with the Rules, 1958. The reserve list was, therefore, prepared, even though it was felt by the Experts of RPSC, who took the interview, that some of the candidates were found fit, however, in general, proficiency in the subject was less than satisfactory. Since no selected candidate has a legal right to claim appointment against even unfilled vacant post, the candidates in the reserve list can have no such legal right to claim to be appointed, merely because their names have been placed in the reserve list. We are, therefore, of considered opinion that the candidates in the reserve list have no right to claim appointment and, therefore, writ petitions of such petitioners, whose names have been placed in the reserve list, are liable to be dismissed, on this ground itself. The same view was taken in S.S. Bohra v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1380/92 and two other petitions, decided on September 13, 1983 , by Hon'ble Shri N.M. Kasliwal, J. (as he then was). This was a case, in which one selected candidate from the main list had not joined, therefore, the petitioners filed writ petition praying for issue of writ of mandamus directing the Government to fill up the post from the reserve list and also not to call for fresh selections for additional posts, which were created subsequently. This was a matter under RJS Rules, 1955. This was a matter under RJS Rules, 1955. It was held that mere inclusion of names in the reserve list under Rule 19 does not confer any right to the petitioners for appointment under Rule 21 of the Rules. 6. We also do not find any force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that no posts be filled up by way of promotion till 52 seats, which, otherwise were to be filled up by way of direct recruitment, were filled up by promotion. It may be pointed out that no such power has been given to the Government by the Rules, 1958. Rule 8 of the Rules was amended in the year, 1984, which was made effective from April 1, 1984. It provides that appointment to the post of Statistical officer has to be made by way of promotion from amongst the Statistical Assistants in various Department and also by selection through agency of RPSC in the proportion of 1:1. The amended proviso to Rule 8 reads as under: "Provided that if the Government is satisfied in consultation with the Commission that suitable persons are not available for appointment by either method of recruitment in particular year appointment by either method in relaxation of the prescribed proportion may be made in the same manner as specified in these Rules. Thus, the only power given to the Government by the relevant rule is that it can transpose the vacancies of promotion quota to that of direct recruitment quota and vice versa, in consultation with the RPSC, if suitable persons are not available by either method. Therefore, the Government has no power to stop giving promotions by way of promotion and continue to recruit persons by way of direct recruitment, till 52 seats, on which promotions were given, are filled up by way of direct recruitment. It may also be pointed out that every year, there are officers, who become eligible for promotion to the posts of Statistical officers, therefore, if this right of consideration for promotion is denied to them, it will be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. We, therefore, do not find any force In this contention also, raised on behalf of the petitioners. 7. As stated above, 13 officers were given promotions on ad hoc basis, keeping in view the exigencies of the administration on the post of Statistical officer. We, therefore, do not find any force In this contention also, raised on behalf of the petitioners. 7. As stated above, 13 officers were given promotions on ad hoc basis, keeping in view the exigencies of the administration on the post of Statistical officer. They have now been considered by the DPC held in the year, 1989 and their result has not been declared, due to directions of this Court. Since the petitioners in the reserve list have no right to file these writ petitions, nor they have any legal right to claim appointment, merely on the ground of their names have been included in the reserve list, question of their consideration on the posts of such persons, who were given ad hoc promotions, does not arise. This reserve list was prepared for the years 1981-82 and there were only 20 vacancies for the above-mentioned two years. Instead of 50 per cent vacancies, all the twenty vacancies have been filled up by way of direct recruitment, which, in fact, was not in accordance with the relevant Rules. We, therefore, do not find any force in this contention of the petitioners, whose names are included in the reserve list, and the same is rejected. The DPC will be free to declare the result. 8. In Writ Petitions No. 313/85 and 314/85, Mr. Paras Kuhad, learned Counsel, has not pressed the prayer, regarding declaring Rule 10(c), which was introduced by amendment dated December 21, 1981, to be unconstitutional. Therefore, it is not necessary to pass any order regarding these two writ petitions. 9. In the result, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, whose names are included in the reserve list, are dismissed, with no order as to costs.Writ dismissed. *******