Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 103 (RAJ)

Dr. Vandana Pathak v. State of Rajasthan

2000-01-31

SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. - Short question that arises for consideration in the instant writ petition is as to whether waiting list can be used as a perennial source of recruitment for filling up the vacancies not advertised ? 2. Selections were made by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short the RPSC) for the five posts of Senior Demonstrator pathology in pursuant of advertisement dated April 3, 1997. The petitioners could only find place in the reserve list at merit No. R/2 and R/3 respectively. List of selected candidates was sent by the RPSC to the State Government and appointment letters were issued. All the selected candidates did join and advertised vacancies were filled in. The State Government on March 18, 1998 sent a further requisition to the RPSC for sending four names from the reserve list so that they could be appointed against the available number of vacancies. But the RPSC refused to recommend the name. 3. Being aggrieved by the action of the RPSC the petitioners have approached this Court seeking issuance of directions in the name of the RPSC to forward the names of the petitioners and in the name of State of Rajasthan to appoint them on the post of Senior Demonstrator Pathology against the available four vacancies. 4. Mr. Ajay Rastogi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners canvassed that the action of the RPSC in withholding the list in terms of requisition received in accordance with Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962 (in short the Rules 1962) is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was contended by the learned counsel that under Rule 8-A of the Rules 1962 the appointing authority is under obligation to determine the vacancies every year, but the State Government has not even taken note of the vacancies which were actually available even on the date of requisition dated March 13, 1997. As many as 9 vacancies were available as on March 13, 1997 but for the reasons best known to the State Government, requisition of only five vacancies was made. On account of error committed by the State Government in not taking note of the actual vacancies available in their cadre strength of Senior Demonstrators (Pathology) a serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioners. On account of error committed by the State Government in not taking note of the actual vacancies available in their cadre strength of Senior Demonstrators (Pathology) a serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioners. It was also urged that in view of the proviso appended to rule 20 of the Rules 1962 the names of the candidates shown in the reserve list may be recommended in the order of merit to the Government within six months from the date on which the original list was forwarded by the Commission to the Government. As the requisition was made by the State Government on March 18, 1998 it was made within the period of six months and the RPSC was duty bound to recommend the names of the petitioners from the reserve list. It was lastly contended that the RPSC is a body created only for the purpose of making recruitment and once the recruitments are made the RPSC is under legal obligation to send the names of the main list immediately after its selection and send the reserve list if there is any, as and when the requisition is received within the time stipulated as prescribed under Rule 20 of the Rules 1962. The RPSC is not at all competent to examine as to which period the vacancies relate and whether the names could be sent to the State Govenrment in terms of the requisition made. Reliance was placed on Jai Narain Ram v. State of U.P., AIR 1996 SC 703 : 1996(2) SCT 208 (SC) and Virender S. Hooda v. State of Haryana, AIR 1999 SC 1701 : 1999(2) SCT 652 (SC). 5. On the other hand, Mr. S.N. Kumawat, learned counsel appearing for the RPSC contended that as per the requisition of the State Government the select list was sent by the RPSC. All the selected candidates joined the post and therefore utilisation of reserve list for appointment more than the advertised vacancies i.e. five vacancies in the present case was contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court. All the selected candidates joined the post and therefore utilisation of reserve list for appointment more than the advertised vacancies i.e. five vacancies in the present case was contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court. The RPSC is an independent constitutional body and for the purpose of utilisation of reserve list it has to ensure that the same is being utilised in terms of the verdict of the Apex Court, which do not permit the RPSC for sending the names out of the reserve list in the facts and circumstances of this case. Reliance was placed on Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1997(8) Supreme Court Cases 488 : 1997(4) SCT 133 (SC) and Ashok Kumar v. Chairman Banking Service Recruitment Board AIR 1996 SC 976 : 1996(1) SCT 660 (SC). 6. Mr. Narendra Jain, learned counsel appearing for the State Government also opposed the issuance of writ in favour of the petitioners. 7. I have pondered over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the so material on record. 8. It is well settled that the waiting list prepared in an examination conducted by the RPSC does not furnish a source of recruitment. It is operative only for the contingency that if any of the selected candidates does not join then the person from the waiting list may be pushed up and be appointed in the vacancy so caused or if there is some extreme exigency the Government may as a matter of policy decision, pick up persons in order of merit from the waiting list. In Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) Their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated that waiting list cannot be used as a perennial source of recruitment for filling up the vacancies not advertised. The candidates in the waiting list have no vested right to be appointed except to the limited extent that when a candidate selected against the existing vacancy does not join for some reason and waiting list is still operative. The candidates included in the waiting list cannot claim appointment on the ground that the vacancies were not worked out properly. 9. In the instant case as already indicated all the candidates selected against the existing vacancies did join and therefore candidates included in the waiting list cannot claim appointment on the ground that vacancies were not worked out properly. The candidates included in the waiting list cannot claim appointment on the ground that the vacancies were not worked out properly. 9. In the instant case as already indicated all the candidates selected against the existing vacancies did join and therefore candidates included in the waiting list cannot claim appointment on the ground that vacancies were not worked out properly. Admittedly the petitioners' names have been shown in the waiting list at Nos. R/2 and R/3 therefore in my considered opinion they cannot claim appointment on the ground that vacancies were not worked out properly. 10. In Ashok Kumar and others v. Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board and othes (supra) it was propounded by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court that Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution enshrine fundamental right to every citizen to claim consideration for appointment to a post under the State. Therefore appointment of the persons kept in the waiting list by the respective Recruitment Boards to the vacancies that had arisen subsequently without notifying them for recruitment is unconstitutional. I am unable to pursuade myself to agree with the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The case law cited on behalf of the petitioners are also distinguishable. In Jain Narain Ram v. State of U.P. and others (supra) candidates selected on the post did not opt to join the services. Under those circumstances it was held that the candidates recommended by the State Government may be issued appointment orders. 11. The case of Virender S. Hooda v. State of Haryana (supra) is also distinguishable. The vacancies arose within the period of six months from the date of previous selection, circulars were attached and under those circumstances it was held that the view of the High Court that vacancies arose after selection proces commenced had no relevance and was not contrary to the delcared policy of the Government in the matter to fill up such posts from the waiting list. 12. The act of the RPSC in withholding the list of the candidates from the reserve list for filling up the vacancies not advertised, to my mind, cannot be said to be arbitrary. Public Service Commission is an important institute to whom is entrusted a valuable and important task of selected personnel who may be entrusted with the important duties including running the administration of the State. Public Service Commission is an important institute to whom is entrusted a valuable and important task of selected personnel who may be entrusted with the important duties including running the administration of the State. Thus the administration or so to say the destiny of the people in the State depends very much on the fair and just decision of the Commission. The Public Service Commission has a distinct status under the Constitution of India. It is an independent entity and the power conferred on the Commission must be deemed to necessarily carry with it the power to regulate the manner in which the Commission should discharge its functions. The Commission has to follow the mandate indicated by the Supreme Court and the High Court. It cannot act mechanically at the whims of the State Government. Waiting list cannot be used as a pernnial source of recruitment for filling up the vacancies not advertised. The candidate in the waiting list has only a limited right and this right is only acquired when a selection candidate does not join for some reason and waiting list is still operative. The candidates included in the waiting list cannot claim appointment on the ground that the vacancies were not worked out properly.In view of what I have discussed hereinabove, I do not find any merit in the instant writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******