JUDGMENT 1. - The above listed writ petitions are in respect of the grievances of the petitioners for three specialities, namely, T.B. and Chest, Anaesthesia and ENT. Since the point involved in all of them is inter-related, all these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order.T.B. & Chest 2. Dr. R.C. Meena has filed writ petitions Nos. 1092/1994, 2601/1994 and 4522/1994. In writ petition No. 1092/1994 it is claimed that the services of the petitioner may be regularised on the post of Asstt. Professor on which he is working on adhoc basis and the order of the RPSC dated 22.2.1994 in not selecting him may be quashed. In writ petition No. 2601/1994 the order dated 10.5.1994 by which Dr. Anil Saxena and Dr. Suman Khangarote were selected is prayed to be quashed. In the writ petition No. 4522/1994 the order dated 21.7.94 has been challenged by which on account of withdrawal of the interim order passed in the writ petition No. 2601/94, the order dated 18.5.1994 was withdrawn. 3. The petitioner, Dr. R.C. Meena has come with the plea that he passed MBBS examination in 1983 and M.D. Examination in Ttiberculosis and Respiratory Diseases in the year 1989 and submitted various papers in seminars. An advertisement was issued on 13.8.1990 by RPSC for filling up the post of Asstt. Professors in various subjects including TB and Chest. The petitioner applied against the said post. He was selected by the Central Selection Committee and is working on the post of Asstt. Professor for last three years. It is claimed that the petitioner is entitled for regularisation in view of the judgment of the Apex Court given in the case of A.K. Jain v. Union of India, 1987(4) JT-445 and Jacob M. Puthuparambil v. Kerala Water Authority, 1990(2) SC ALE 588. Thus the regularisation has been claimed on the basis that the petitioner is working against the vacant post and that the RPSC has time and again given concurrence for continuance of the services of the petitioner. In A.K. Jain's case (supra) the appointment order contemplated three chances for selection through UPSC, yet it was claimed that having failed to get regularisation in accordance with the prescribed rule and regulation for regular appointment, the service had to be terminated and the action cannot be said to be arbitrary and illegal. In A.K. Jain's case (supra) the appointment order contemplated three chances for selection through UPSC, yet it was claimed that having failed to get regularisation in accordance with the prescribed rule and regulation for regular appointment, the service had to be terminated and the action cannot be said to be arbitrary and illegal. In the case of Jacob M. Puthuparambil (supra) rule 9(e) provided regularisation of services of any person appointed temporarily if he had completed continuous service of two years on 22.12.73. Assistance was taken from this rule which is not existing in the present matter. Hence no assistance can be taken from these decisions. 4. The RPSC. issued an advertisement No. 7/91 92 by which four posts were advertised for appointment of lecturers in TB and Chest wing which was later on changed into six posts out of which three posts (two for ST and one for SC) were reserved for the candidates belonging to SC and ST Category A writ petition No. 6149/1993 was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed on 13.10.93 observing that it is premature and the petitioner should approach to the Government. In pursuance of the observations of this court a representation was submitted by the petitioners but no fruitful results have come. On the basis of the advertisement. the RPSC has sent recommendations on 25.9.93 stating that they had made selections treating one seat reserved for SC and one for ST only. The State Government on 5.10.1993 sent the list back to the RPSC and directed to select one another ST candidate also. There had been a lot of correspondence between the State Government and the RPSC and ultimately the Government issued appointment orders of six persons including Dr. Atal B. Srivastava who belongs to general category by changing the category from ST to general category which is alleged to be not permissible. In these circumstances, the claim for regularisation has been made. 5. In this regard, it may be observed that the appointment of the petitioner on 12.8.91 on the recommendations of the Central Selection Committee was on urgent temporary basis in accordance with the proviso to rule 30(1) of the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962. In these circumstances, the claim for regularisation has been made. 5. In this regard, it may be observed that the appointment of the petitioner on 12.8.91 on the recommendations of the Central Selection Committee was on urgent temporary basis in accordance with the proviso to rule 30(1) of the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962. Rule 30 pertains to urgent temporary appointment, and the proviso to said rule provides that such an appointment will not be continued beyond a period of one year without referring the case to the Commission for concurrence, where such concurrence is necessary and shall be terminated immediately on its refusal to concur. Rule 30 confers power on the appointing authority for making appointment in officiating capacity of the person eligible for appointment to the post by promotion on direct recruitment to the service. From this rule it is evident that the appointment is on temporary and urgent basis and if the duly selected candidate is appointed by the State Government the right of the petitioner for regularisation cannot be claimed. An adhoc appointment may have continued beyond the period by obtaining the concurrence of the RPSC under rule 30 which cannot confer a right for regularisation on the petitioner. Rule 30 itself contemplates that appointment is on urgent temporary basis. It is only in order to select a proper candidate that the Central Selection Committee has to make the exercise for such urgent temporary selection. After the expiry of one year the concurrence of the RPSC has to be obtained. In the order of appointment is clearly mentioned that the appointment will be initially upto-31..12.1991 from the date the petitioners takes over the charge of the post or till the duly selected candidate from RPSC are made available whichever is earlier. It is therefore obligatory on the part of the respondents to select a person through RPSC. It is for the RPSC to see that. the person who is working on the post on urgent temporary basis has the experience and proper qualification and if the RPSC is satisfied that any person working on urgent temporary basis is less meritorious than other candidates, no fault can be found with such selection and the petitioner cannot claim regularisation on that basis. The prayer for regularisation has no substance. The prayer for regularisation has no substance. It may be noted that after taking chance with the RPSC and on being unsuccessful the petitioner cannot claim regularisation and no assistance can be get from the judgment relied upon. Learned counsel for the State has relied upon the decision given in the case of State v. Dr. M.A. Haque and others, 1993(2) JT-265 , wherein it was observed : "We are also conscious of the fact that candidate in service have a disadvantage as against the fresh candidates in the tests particularly when they face the tests after a long lapse of time. As against this, however, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the recruitment rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India have to be followed strictly and not in breach. if a disregard of the rules and the by-passing of the Public Service Commission are permitted, it will open a back-door for illegal recruitment without limit. In fact this court has of late, been witnessing a constant violation of the recruitment rule and a scant respect for the Constitutional provisions requiring recruitment to the service through the Public Service Commission. It appears that since this court has in some cases permitted regularisation of the irregularly recruited employees some Governments and authorities have been increasingly resorting to irregular recruitment. The result has been that the recruitment rules and the Public Service Commission have been kept in cold storage and candidates dictated by various considerations are being recruited as a matter of course." 6. If the petitioner is not selected by the RPSC then he has a right to challenge the order of the RPSC if any illegality is committed in not recommending his name, but he has no right to challenge the selection made of other persons who are of better merit than him. In this case the advertisement No. 7/91-92 was issued on 26.8.91 in which four posts of Asstt. Professors were advertised for TB and Chest, out of which one post was reserved for Scheduled Caste and 2 posts were reserved for ST candidate. A corrigendum was issued on' 1.5.1993 by which four posts were changed as one belonging to Scheduled Caste, one to Scheduled Tribe.and two for general category. Professors were advertised for TB and Chest, out of which one post was reserved for Scheduled Caste and 2 posts were reserved for ST candidate. A corrigendum was issued on' 1.5.1993 by which four posts were changed as one belonging to Scheduled Caste, one to Scheduled Tribe.and two for general category. Thereafter, a request was made by the State Government for two more posts and thus the position remains that three persons were to be selected from the general category and two from ST and one for SC category. Initially, the last date for receipt of the application forms was 22.1.1991 and 34 applications were received. An amendment in the rules was proposed and after the amendment the State Government sent a letter on 24.3.93 on the basis of which corrigendum was issued on 1.5.93 and last date of receipt of the applications was extended till 11.6.93. Three more fresh applications were received. 35 candidates were found suitable and called for interview which were held from 22.9.93 to 23.9.93. The petitioner was also called for interview. 27 candidates appeared and the result of the selected candidate was declared on 23.9.93 and the name of the petitioner was neither in the main list nor in the reserve list. The main list containing the names of six candidates was sent to the Government on 25.9.93 and the appointment letters were issued by the State Government on 22.2.94. Thereafter, the State Government called the names from the reserve list, but that could not be sent as a dispute was going on whether the vacancies pertain to the subsequent year or not. It may also be noted that the petitioner has made Dr. A.B. Srivastava as respondent but other selected candidates have not been made party. The requisition which was sent by the State Government for two more seats was on 13.9.93 and it was prior to any selection which could be made. The RPSC called four persons of S.T. category against the two vacancies but only one candidate was found suitable and one post was filled up of S.T. category from general category because the candidate of S.T. category was not available. This position was mentioned even in the advertisement wherein it was stated that in case of non-availability of SC/ST category candidates the vacant post reserved for these categories shall be filled in from amongst general category candidates. This position was mentioned even in the advertisement wherein it was stated that in case of non-availability of SC/ST category candidates the vacant post reserved for these categories shall be filled in from amongst general category candidates. Rule 8(4) of the Rules also provides that in the event of non-availability of the eligible and suitable candidates amongst Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes, as the case may be, in a particular year, the vacancies so reserved for them shall be filled in accordance with the normal procedure, and an equivalent number of additional vacancies shall be reserved in the subsequent year. The decision in the case of State of Rajastahn v. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal and another 1993(2) WLC-140 has no application because that was a case of promotion in which it was found that if the candidates of SC/ST category are not available, then the post of merit would be filled up on the basis of seniority-cum-merit basis. That was not a case for selection by direct recruitment and therefore the said judgment. is not applicable. 7. In Writ Petition No. 2601/1994 it is stated that the petitioner is entitled for regularisation in view of the decision given in the case of Dr. A.K. Jain (supra). The four posts initially advertised were increased to six on the basis of which the names were sent to the State Government on 25.9.93. The names were called from the reserve list but they were not sent on the ground that they pertain to subsequent years. Attention has been drawn to the provisions of rule 20 of the Rules of 1962 and it is stated that the RPSC has no right to consider additional vacancies more than 50% of the vacancies advertised. Two persons from the reserve list belonging to the general category have been given appointment vide order dated 10.5.94 and it was done after the expiry of six months. In this regard it may be observed that rule 20 of the Rule has contemplated that the list of suitable candidates has to be prepared in order of merit and this list has to be of the number of posts advertised. In this regard it may be observed that rule 20 of the Rule has contemplated that the list of suitable candidates has to be prepared in order of merit and this list has to be of the number of posts advertised. Under rule 9 it is provided that the Commission may on intimation from the State Government while selecting the candidates for the vacancies advertised would recommend the names not exceeding 50% of the advertised vacancies if the intimation of such., additional requirement is received before the selection. Thus rule 20 read with rule 9 contemplates that before the selection process is over if intimation of additional vacancies is received then the select list could be prepared of the post initially advertised and also the additional requirement not exceeding 50%, but the reserve list is to be prepared only to the extent of 50% of the advertised vacancies. In this case before the selection was over, additional requirement of two seats was sent. The posts advertised were four and therefore the select list could be of 6 persons and the reserve list could be of two persons i.e. 50% of the initial posts advertised. The names from the reserve list could be sent within 6 months from the date on which the original list was forwarded by the Commission to the Government. The order of the appointment could be even after the period of six months and there is no restriction in issuing the order of appointment if the names from the reserve list are forwarded within six months of the select list. The petitioner relied upon the decision in the case of Dr. Vandana Mangal v. State of Rajasthan and others S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1428/1994 decided on 2.4.94 wherein it has been held that after completion of six months from the date on which the original list is forwarded by the Commission to the Government, the RPSC has no right to recommend the names for appointment from the reserve list. So far as the proposition which has been laid down in this judgment is concerned, no controversy exists as in accordance with the Rules of 1962 the jurisdiction of the Commission is to forward the names within six months from the date the original list was sent. The petitioner has been found unsuccessful and therefore he cannot claim any right to challenge the appointment of other persons. The petitioner has been found unsuccessful and therefore he cannot claim any right to challenge the appointment of other persons. In this case the stay was granted on 16.5.94 by which the order dated 10.5.94 was stayed. This stay was vacated on 18.7.94. On the basis of the order dated 18.7.94 the State Government passed the order dated 21.7.94. The order dated 10.5.94 in respect of appointment of Dr. Anil Saxena and Dr. Suman Khangarote the respondents have stated that the main list was sent by the RPSC to the State Government on 25.9.93 and again on 5.11.1993 and the order of appointment has been issued on 22.2.94. The requisition for calling the names from the reserve list was sent on the basis of which the RPSC sent the names and appointment was made on 10.5.94. The six vacancies were filled up on 22.2.94 and as such appointment order dated 10.5.94 does not suffer from any illegality. 8. In this regard it may be observed that the name of the petitioner was neither in the main list nor in the reserve list and therefore he cannot be said to be an effected person. Plea of regularisation has already been found not in accordance with law as observed above and as such when the petitioner was neither in the main list nor in the reserve list the appointment of the persons from the main list or the reserve list cannot be challenged by him. The writ petition No. 2601/1994 has no substance. 9. Writ Petition No. is again for challenging the order dated 21.7.94. This is a consequential order passed on account of withdrawal of the stay order which was granted on 16.5.94 and withdrawn on 18.7.94. The operation of the order dated 10.5.94 was stayed by an interim order dated 16.5.94. Since the order has already been withdrawn, the consequential order passed on 21.7.94 cannot be said to be illegal in any manner. This writ petition has no substance. 10. In the writ petition No. 2664/94, Anandi Mathur v. State and others , the petitioner has also applied for the post of Asstt. Professor in TB and Chest and he was not selected. He has stated that earlier the selection was made in the year 1987 and no examination was conducted for six years. 10. In the writ petition No. 2664/94, Anandi Mathur v. State and others , the petitioner has also applied for the post of Asstt. Professor in TB and Chest and he was not selected. He has stated that earlier the selection was made in the year 1987 and no examination was conducted for six years. There is no year-wise determination of the vacancies and the advertisement was for four posts, but six posts were filled up and two names were sent from the reserve list. The action of the RPSC in this regard has been challenged. As observed above that the person who has not been selected and whose name is neither in the main list nor in the reserve list, has no right to challenge the selection. This writ petition has no substance in view of the findings given above in respect of the case of Dr. R.C. Meena. 11. Dr. Raj Gopal in his writ petition No. 3652/94 has also challenged the action of the respondents on the ground that there is no year-wise determination of the vacancies, and against the advertised four posts of Asstt. Professors in TB and Chest, 8 persons were appointed on 22.2.94 and 10.5.94. This petitioner also appeared in the interview before the RPSC and was not found suitable. His name was neither in the main list nor in the reserve list and therefore, the direction for regularisation of services on the basis of adhoc temporary urgent appointment cannot be given in view of the findings recorded in the case of Dr. R.C. Meena. This writ petition has no substance.ANAESTHESIA 12. In writ petition No. 925/1994,, Dr. (Mrs.) Shobha Purohit v. RPSC and others , the petitioner was selected by the RPSC as Medical Officer on 1994 and her claim is that she is eligible for the post Asstt. Professor (Anaesthesia) as she acquired requisite qualification in 1990.The department has appointed number of lecturers on urgent temporary basis and about 10 lecturers were working since last 4 to 5 years and the actual number of vacancies has not been determined nor advertised and it was by advertisement No. 8/91-92 dated 26.9.91 that six posts in Anaesthesia were advertised out of which two were reserved for Scheduled Caste, two for scheduled tribes and two were for general category. Thereafter, the posts advertised were increased to 10 by corrigendum dated 1.5.93. 73 candidates applied. Thereafter, the posts advertised were increased to 10 by corrigendum dated 1.5.93. 73 candidates applied. The interviews were held from 14.9.93 to 18.9.93. The select list for 10 persons and reserve list of 5 persons were prepared and the main list forwarded to the State Government on 24.9.93. She has challenged the action of the respondents on the ground that the main list of 10 selected candidates was forwarded on 24.9.93 and the period of six months expired on 23.3.94, and as the requisition was received before this date demanding the names from the reserve list, the RPSC, was bound to send the names. There had been lot of correspondence between the RPSC and the State Government that the RPSC was found to refer the names called within the stipulated time. It is also stated that because of clerical mistake at the time of sending the initial requisition one post for the year 1991-92 was not included. There were six lien vacancies (long term) and as such the names from the reserve list should have been sent. In the case of Dr. Vandana Mangal decided on 22.4.94 the RPSC considered that the names from the reserve list are not to be sent because the period of six months had already expired. It is stated that the factual position is not correctly placed as prior to 22.4.94 the RPSC has already received two requisitions on 11.2.1994 and 5.3.94 and this fact was not brought to the notice of the court. On this basis it is submitted that in respect of the vacancies 1991-92, 1992-93 for which the select list/reserve list has been prepared the RPSC is bound to refer the names from the reserve list. 13. The RPSC has stated that six posts were initially advertised on 26.9.91 and the last date of receipt of the applications was 22.11.1991. Sixty applications were received. The matter with regard to amendment in the rules was pending with the Government and vide letter dated 23.3.1991 amended requisition was sent for 10 posts of lecturers in Anaesthesia, out of which 5 posts were reserved for the candidates belonging to the scheduled caste and 5 posts were reserved for the candidates belonging to the category of scheduled tribe. The corrigendum was issued on 1.5.1993 and the last date of applications was extended to 11.6.1993. 13 more fresh applications were received. The corrigendum was issued on 1.5.1993 and the last date of applications was extended to 11.6.1993. 13 more fresh applications were received. The eligible candidates were called for interview and the result was declared on 18.9.93. Only one candidate from the category of scheduled caste was found suitable and the names of other candidates from the general category were included in the main list and name of 5 candidates were kept in the reserve list. The main list was sent to the State Government on 24.9.93. The name of the petitioner was at No. 2 in the reserve list. The RPSC received a requisition on 11.2.1994 from the State Government for appointment of one lecturer from the reserve list. The said vacancy had fallen vacant in respect of the year 1993-94. Four persons were promoted on the basis of the recommendations of the DPC and as such 4 posts became available and thus the name of 5 persons were called from the reserve list. The fact that the requisition was received within 6 months was admitted but in view of the decision given in D.B. Special Appeal No. 671/1992 it was considered that the requisition can be sent with regard to the vacancies which came in existence before issuing the advertisement and the vacancy which came in existence after that, the Government cannot take them into account for filling the post from the reserve list. In these circumstances a communication dated 25.3.94 was sent by the RPSC to the State Government that since the vacancies came into existence in the year 1993-94 no appointment can be given from the reserve list prepared in the. matter. It is also stated that in view of the decision given by this court in the case of Dr. Vandana Mangal, the names from the reserve list could not be sent for appointment to the State Government. The said petition was decided without notice to the State Government. The application for review or special appeal has not been made. In respect of speciality of TB and. Chest it was found that the vacancies were for the earlier year and therefore the names were sent from the reserve list while in respect of anaesthesia since it came to the knowledge that the vacancy pertains to the subsequent year, the names, from the reserve list were not sent. Learned Addl. In respect of speciality of TB and. Chest it was found that the vacancies were for the earlier year and therefore the names were sent from the reserve list while in respect of anaesthesia since it came to the knowledge that the vacancy pertains to the subsequent year, the names, from the reserve list were not sent. Learned Addl. Advocate General on behalf of the State Government has pointed out that since the names were not sent from the reserve list, no option was left but to issue fresh advertisement for filling up the vacancies. From the letter dated 15.3.1994".' it is evident that four vacancies were pertaining to the year 1993-94 and the earlier advertisement was in respect of the years upto 1992-93 and it was in these circumstances that the names were not sent by the RPSC. An advertisement No. 8/94-95 has already been issued on 6.12.1994. 14. The facts of the petitioners, namely Dr. (Mrs.) Anjum Saiyed (SBCW No. 1979/95) and Dr. Rajeev Sharma (SBCW No. 85/95) are almost similar except the fact that the name of Dr. Anjum Siayed appears in the reserve list at No.5 and that of Rajeev Sharma appears at No. 4 in the said list. Mr. Bhandari learned Addl. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State has stated that the five vacancies of which the names were called from the RPSC were pertaining, one for 1991-92, 4 for 1993-94. The vacancies of 1993-94 were vacant on account of promotions being given in that year. It is also brought to the notice of this court that now requisition has been sent for 15 posts which include the above five posts and out of the remaining 10 posts, four pertains to the year 1993-94 and six are for the year 1994-95. The six vacancies for 1994-95 are in respect of there newly created posts at Udaipur, one at Bikaner and one at Kota and one is anticipatory vacancy on account of the promotions for the year 1994-95. 15. The six vacancies for 1994-95 are in respect of there newly created posts at Udaipur, one at Bikaner and one at Kota and one is anticipatory vacancy on account of the promotions for the year 1994-95. 15. It is contended that the eligibility should be considered on the date of interviews and for that proposition reliance has been placed on the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar and another, 1993(1) SLR 379 , in which it is held that if the candidate is fully qualified on the date of interview he cannot be made to suffer as a result of delay in the result for no fault of his own. 16. The decision in the case of RPSC v. Mathuralal Thk and another, D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 468/95 decided on 16.8.95 at the principal seat of this court at Jodhpur has been cited on the point that the commission could not refuse to send the name from the reserve list in order of merit if it is so desired by the Government. It was held that the requisition has been made within 6 months from the date of final select list and the Commission cannot refuse to send the name of the persons. Since the point of power of jurisdiction of Public Service Commission is not being decided and the power of the State is examined on the basis of the vacancies of subsequent year for which the aggrieved person has a right to challenge the action of the State Government, I consider it appropriate that since the Commission has already issued the advertisement on 29.12.1994 for 15 posts in Anaesthesia and four posts in ENT, therefore, selection should be processed on the basis of this advertisement. 17. It is an established principle of law that the vacancies which were created after the determination of the vacancies and are in respect of subsequent year cannot be considered. The provisions of regulation 3 of Rajasthan Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1951, has provided that it will not be necessary for the Commission to be consulted on any of the matters mentioned therein of general principle relating to methods of recruitment and principles to be followed in making appointments, which includes the creation of posts and determination of number of vacancies to be filled in a service in any particular year. The procedure for holding the DPC for promotion to various services has also been given with certain guidelines. It contemplates that the appointing authority determine the vacancies on 1st April or at the earliest thereafter at any time during the financial year. In respect of the vacancies for newly created posts if any included in the budget as may have been agreed to by the Finance Department upto the date the vacancies are determined can also be taken into consideration besides long leave vacancies pertaining to one year. The vacancies which are of subsequent year cannot be taken into consideration. Since the original requisition pertains to the year upto 1992-93, persons could not have been called by the State Government from the reserve list for 1993-94. The decision in the case of Smt. Nita Jain v. State and others, 1993(3) WLC-765 has cast an obligation on the RPSC to see that the names from the reserve list for utilising the same against the vacancies of subsequent years could not be sent. The decision in the case of RPSC v. Mathuralal Tak (supra) has observed that the Commission is bound to send the names. The position of the RPSC is very precarious and this matter is not being referred to the larger Bench as this controversy could be resolved by the larger Bench in any other case, but so far as the present matter is concerned, the law is clear that the vacancies for the subsequent year could not be considered. The advertisement has already been issued on 29.12.1994 for 15 posts of lecturers in Anaesthesia and 4 posts in ENT. In the matter of ENT as stated above the confusion was created by the State Government by changing its stand from one place to another. In respect of TB and Chest it is found that compliance of rule 20 read with rule 9 has been made. The candidates who were selected by the Central Selection Committee cannot claim the right of regularisation. 18. In respect of TB and Chest it is found that compliance of rule 20 read with rule 9 has been made. The candidates who were selected by the Central Selection Committee cannot claim the right of regularisation. 18. Looking to the facts which have been stated by the learned Additional Advocate General it is evident that one post for 1991-92 earlier was available for which the name could have been called by the State Government from the reserve list and the decision which has been given by the Division Bench on the point whether it is obligatory on the part of the RPSC to refer the names of the candidates to the State Government if the requisition has been sent within 6 months does not affect the right of those petitioners who claim that the vacancy for the subsequent year cannot be filled up by calling the names from the reserve list. It is an established principle of law that the State Government has no power to call for the names from the reserve list in respect of the period which is subsequent to the determination of the vacancies and if any vacancy has been created subsequently or pertains to the subsequent year, then the right of those persons who became eligible subsequently is affected. In the present case the contravention is alleged by the State Government.in calling the names from the reserve list affecting the right of those candidates who became eligible for 1993-94 or 1994-95 and could not apply for post on the basis of advertisement which was issued when they were not eligible and thus the argument is based on the ground that the vacancies from the reserve list could not be filled up from the advertisement issued on the basis of the vacancies determined upto 1992-93. One candidate only would be appointed from the reserve list as out of these posts one is stated to be pertaining to 1991-92 and therefore even if the RPSC is bound to refer the names from the reserve list, appointment cannot be given to any person in respect of the posts pertaining to the year subsequent to 1992-93. Therefore, one vacancy could be filled up from the list of 1991-92 and it is stated that Dr. Mathuralal Tak is at No. 1. Therefore, one vacancy could be filled up from the list of 1991-92 and it is stated that Dr. Mathuralal Tak is at No. 1. In view of the factual position which has been found so far as the directions which have been given by the Division Bench in the case of RPSC v. Dr. Mathuralal Tak have to be followed and it is on that basis that the vacancies pertained to the subsequent year and new advertisement has been issued for 15 posts. These 15 posts include one for 1991-92 which is considered that it could be filled from the reserve list but the names sent of other candidates of reserve list could not be given appointment as the vacancies pertain to the subsequent years.ENT 19. In the speciality of the ENT the facts of the petitioners are more or less common. An advertisement dated 26.9.91 was issued for two posts of lecturers in ENT out of which one was reserved in Schedule Tribe and the other was for general category candidates. The last date of submission of the application forms was 22.11.1991. 40 applications were received. An amended requisition was sent by the State Government on 25.3.93 showing that out of two posts of lecturers in ENT, one is for the candidate of the general category and the other is for scheduled tribe. A corrigendum was issued on 1.5.1993 and the Post of Scheduled Tribe was changed to scheduled caste and last date of receipt of the applications was extended to 11.6.1993. 10 more applications were received. 49 candidates were called for interview which were held between October 28 and 30, 1993. The petitioner Nishi Sankhla was called for interview for 25.12.1993 and the result and declared on the same date. Vide letter dated 14.10.1993 the State Government informed that there were three posts of lecturers in ENT out of which two posts were reserved for the candidates of general category and one post of the candidate of the category of scheduled tribe and not for the candidate of. the category of scheduled caste as had been informed by the State Government earlier. It would be evident that a contradictory statement was taken by the Government one after another. A writ petition was filed by Dr. the category of scheduled caste as had been informed by the State Government earlier. It would be evident that a contradictory statement was taken by the Government one after another. A writ petition was filed by Dr. Sanjay Shukla (SBCW No. 6344/93) and this court in the said writ petition vide interim order dated 27.10.1993 directed the RPSC to proceed with the selection but the appointments shall not be given except one post of lecturer in ENT. The name of Dr. Sunita Agrawal was sent to the State Government vide letter dated 1.1.1994. From the facts which have been stated it is evident that initially one post was reserved for ST category, by corrigendum it was changed to Scheduled Caste category and then again to Scheduled Tribe. Thus, the State Government was not only in confusion but created a situation for which it is responsible and which has given rise to litigation. Therefore, it is necessary that the Secretary, Medical and Health Department should enquire into the matter and fix the responsibility on the officers who are responsible for creating this confusion as a result of which the litigation has been increased. The disciplinary action should be taken against the person/persons who had acted negligently. The name of Dr. B.K. Singh is in the reserve list. Three posts were not advertised. It was not known to the Commission as to which year the subsequent vacancy pertain. The stay in the case of Dr. Sanjay Shukla was vacated but the confusion continued. The name of Dr. Nishi Sonkhya was neither in the main list nor in the reserve list and as such so far as she is concerned, it is considered that she has no right to claim any appointment or to challenge the appointment/selection of the candidates from the general list. Dr. B.K. Singh has claimed himself to have been placed in the main list in general category. Since the advertisement was not issued for two post of general category therefore his name could not be included and his candidature has to be considered on the basis of reserve list. Dr. Beni Prasad belongs to scheduled caste and he was called for interview on 28.10.93. The State Government initially informed that the post reserved is for scheduled tribe, then it changed to scheduled caste and vide letter dated 14.10.93 it was said to be belonging to scheduled tribe. Dr. Beni Prasad belongs to scheduled caste and he was called for interview on 28.10.93. The State Government initially informed that the post reserved is for scheduled tribe, then it changed to scheduled caste and vide letter dated 14.10.93 it was said to be belonging to scheduled tribe. The Commission not being competent to decide as to which category the post belonged, it could not take a decision in respect of second post. 20. In the matter of Dr. Sanjay Shukla it is stated that no application has been received in pursuance of the advertisement dated 26.6.91 or corrigendum dated 1.5.93. As observed in the case of Dr. R.C. Meena the plea of regularisation cannot be accepted, because the appointment of the petitioner was on urgent temporary basis and if a regularly selected candidate is appointed, he cannot have any grievance. The petitioner has not submitted any application and therefore he cannot challenge the selection or the list prepared as he cannot be considered to be aggrieved person. 21. In respect of two posts of lecturers in ENT it has been pointed out by Mr. Bhandari, learned Addl. Advocate General that one post is for Scheduled Caste Category and one is for general category.. These posts are for the period upto 1992-93. The person from general category has already been appointed and it was because of the mistake on the part of the State Government that the letter was sent to the RPSC that the said post is reserved for the candidate belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category and thereafter it was further pointed out that it pertains to the Scheduled Caste category. One another post for general category is said to be on account of long term lien vacancy of Dr. Hari Mohan Sharma and is lying vacant since 6.9.91. It is stated that the said vacancy is not to be filled up permanently or even temporarily. At the moment four vacancies which are to be filled are in respect of two posts for 1993-94 and two newly created posts. Requisition has already been sent to the RPSC and advertisement for these posts has been issued. 22. Consequently, the writ petitions pertaining to the specially of TB and Chest i.e. the writ petitions Nos. 1092/94, Dr. R.C. Meena v. State , 2601/94 Dr. R.C. Meena v. State , 4522/1994 Dr. R.C. Meena v. State , 2664/94 Dr. Requisition has already been sent to the RPSC and advertisement for these posts has been issued. 22. Consequently, the writ petitions pertaining to the specially of TB and Chest i.e. the writ petitions Nos. 1092/94, Dr. R.C. Meena v. State , 2601/94 Dr. R.C. Meena v. State , 4522/1994 Dr. R.C. Meena v. State , 2664/94 Dr. Anandi Mathur v. State and 4115/94 Dr. Rajgopal v. State and others , are dismissed. So far as the writ petitions pertaining to the speciality of Anaesthesia are concerned, it is directed that the State Government shall fill up one post from the reserve list and since rest of the vacancies pertain to the years 1993-94 and 1994-95, the said posts will be filled up on the basis of advertisement issued by the RPSC on 6.12.1994. If any of the petitioners has not submitted his application, he may submit the same now within 15 days from today and the RPSC shall consider the same as submitted within time. So far as the speciality of ENT is concerned, the advertisement has already been issued for four posts and action would be taken by the RPSC on the basis of the said advertisement. If any of the petitioners has not submitted his application in respect of these four posts advertised, he can submit his application now within 15 days from today and the same shall be considered by the RPSC as submitted within time. These writ petitions are disposed of with the above directions. *******