Judgment J.C. Verma, J.-All the above writ petitions involve same facts and law and, therefore, are being decided together. (2). Vide advertisement No.5 of the year 1996-97 dated 8.1996, the Rajasthan Public Prosecutor Commission had invited applications for filling up 10 posts of Assistant Agriculture Research Officers (Botany) in the pay Scale of Rs. 2000-3200. The RPSC after completing the formalities of selection had recommended 10 names for appointment to the department. All the 10 persons were appointed. The RPSC also prepared a reserve/waiting list of six persons. All the five petitions find place in the reserve list. Ashok Kumar Bansal was at No.1, Shiv Prakash Maheshwari was at No.2, Banshidhar Palsania was at No.3, Bhanwar Dan Detha was at No.4, Shyam Sunder Meena was at No.5 and Ramesh Chand was at No. 6. (3). After receipt of the recommendations of 10 persons and having appointed 10 persons certain representations were made to the Government to the effect that certain vacancies were still lying vacant and persons mentioned in the reserve list be appointed as per their merit. The State of Rajasthan, Department of Agriculture vide its letter No. 1624 dated 10.1997 addressed to the Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission had intimated the Commission that two vacancies were still lying vacant which were to be filled-up and, therefore, request was made to send two names as per merit of six persons from the reserve list. On receipt of the said letter, the RPSC vide its letter dated 2 10.1997 had sent all the six names as per the merit with the request that two of the said persons as per the merit of the reserve list and on the roster point can be filled up (this is so revealed from the record so produced). The Agriculture Department appointed Ashok Kumar Bansal, the petitioner & Anr. persons Shyam Sunder Meena who was on waiting merit list at No.5 of the reserved category, however, Shyam Sunder Meena declined to join and his appointment was cancelled on 6.4.1998. The department appointed all the five persons of the reserve list instead of two posts for which the requisition was sent on 10.1997. (4). Action of the respondent to fill up five posts instead of two was objected to by the RPScand clarification was sought for. The department appointed all the five persons of the reserve list instead of two posts for which the requisition was sent on 10.1997. (4). Action of the respondent to fill up five posts instead of two was objected to by the RPScand clarification was sought for. The department sent the clarification that even though names against two posts were called for but the RPSC had sent the names of six persons who were on the reserve list. The RPSC was not satisfied and once again the matter was sent for clarification. Ultimately, the matter was even taken up at the highest level, legal opinion was sought and it was opined that filling of 10 vacancies for which requisition was sent and recommendations were made and after appointing 10 persons, none could be appointed over and above 10 recommendations. Alt the petitioners were removed from service vide impugned order, hence the present writ petitions. (5). It is the contention of the petitioner Ashok Kumar Bansal in S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 2987/2000 that he was one of the two appointees for which the requisition was made subsequently and that he is entitled to retain the job in question. In the order impugned Annexure-3 in the case of Ashok Kumar Bansal and also in the case of all other petitioners, while terminating their services, the respondent was of the opinion that the appointment has been made in violation to the Judgment and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and, therefore, action was taken under Rule 23-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules. It is also one of the contention that Ashok Kumar Bansal, petitioner, has now become over age and in any case he should not be removed after 2-1/2 years of his appointment. (6). Per contra, the respondents are defending the action being taken on the ground that no future vacancies becoming available subsequent to the advertisement, could have been filled up from the reserved list of the Commission and, therefore, the impugned order dated 30.6.2000 is perfectly in order. (7). (6). Per contra, the respondents are defending the action being taken on the ground that no future vacancies becoming available subsequent to the advertisement, could have been filled up from the reserved list of the Commission and, therefore, the impugned order dated 30.6.2000 is perfectly in order. (7). Ashok Kumar Bansal, the petitioner, also even goes on to say that there were as many as 12 vacancies instead of 10 and in any case there were 11 clear vacancies prior to the issuance of the advertisement as one vacancy had become available on 27,9.1996 and as such instead of sending advertisement for 10 vacancies, the advertisement should have been sent for 12 or in any case for 11 vacancies and relies on a circular issued by the department on 11.1997, copy of which is attached as Annexure-6 to the rejoinder which provides the contingencies when appointments can be made from the reserve list i.e.; (1) when person so selected does not join and the vacancy remains vacant; (2) if any vacancy has become available for the same year in which requisition was sent which was at the time of requisition could not be included for any reason and, therefore, submits that for the reason that one vacancy had become available and thus the petitioner Ashok Kumar Bansal was entitled for the said post which fact is denied in additional affidavit by the respondents saying that no such vacancy was available. (8). In the case of Roshni Devi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., 1998 (8) SCC 59 , the vacancies advertised were 662. The list of 5373 candidates was prepared and out of this list 1692 candidates were recommended for appointment to different departments. One Sudesh Kumari had approached the High Court of Punjab & Haryana against such appointment. The appointments were not disturbed, however, direction was given that all those persons who were higher in merit as compared to the list person who might have been appoinlment as Clerk were entitled to be appointed. Certain other candidates also filed writ petitions challenging the selections and preparation of the list. Challenge was made on the ground that against 662 posts of clerks, list of 5373 could not have been prepared. Out of controversy raised in Supreme Court the following directions were issued: “(1) The appointments already made from out of the list prepared on’110.1989 will not be annulled. Challenge was made on the ground that against 662 posts of clerks, list of 5373 could not have been prepared. Out of controversy raised in Supreme Court the following directions were issued: “(1) The appointments already made from out of the list prepared on’110.1989 will not be annulled. (2) The last person who is stated to have been appointed being at Serial No. 4645, persons occupying higher position than him could be considered for appointment to the post of Clerk if there exists any vacancy for them. (3) Thevacancy in this context could mean the vacancies which were available in the State of Haryana prior to the advertisement issued for selecting persons for the said post for the year 1995. It is to be made clear that if no vacancies exist on the aforesaid date, then no further appointment would be made from out of the list prepared on 110.1989 notwithstanding the directions of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Sudesh Kumari case. (4) If vacancies did exist on the date as aforementioned, then the appointments from out of the list prepared on 110.1989 could be made strictly on the basis of their merit position in the list. (5) We strongly deprecate the practice of selecting and preparing an unusually large list compared to the vacancy position and the State Government should either amend the recruitment rules in that respect and till then should issued positive administrative instructions giving the right to the Selection Board to select only some persons in excess man the requisition for which the Board is going to select people. (6) We also do not approve of the inaction on the part of the Slate Government in not assailing the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sudesh Kumari case and now coming up before us making submissions that the Judgment is practically in capable of being implemented.” (9). In the case of State of Bihar v. Madan Mohan Singh & Ors., JT 1993 (Supp) SC 198, the advertis-ment’ and the whole selection process were confined to fill up only 32 vacancies. It was held that the merit list prepared of 128 candidates was to hold good only for the purpose of those 32 vacancies and no further because the said process of selection for those 32 vacancies got exhausted and came to an end and the list cannot be kept subsisting. It was held that the merit list prepared of 128 candidates was to hold good only for the purpose of those 32 vacancies and no further because the said process of selection for those 32 vacancies got exhausted and came to an end and the list cannot be kept subsisting. It was further held that if the same list is held subsisting for the purpose of filling up other vacancies also that would naturally amount to deprivation of rights of other candidates who would have become eligible subsequent to the said advertisement and selection process. (10). In the case of Virendra S. Hooda & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., AIR 1999 SC 1701 , where further vacancies were available within six months from the receipt of the recommendations of the PSC, there was a government circular providing that such vacancies have to be filled up out of waiting list maintained by Commission. The advertisement was published for 12 posts of Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch). Final result was Published on 19.6.1992, request was made to the PSC for filling up 30 vacancies under proviso to Rule (5) of the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules. it was the contention that there were 23 vacant posts available at the time of advertisement. The High Court had taken the view that the administrative instructions cannot be enforced by the writ petitioners and vacancy becoming available after the initiation of the process of recruitment would be looking at a matter from a narrow and wrong angle. It was held that so far as the instructions are not contrary to the rules, the parties are found to follow the same. It was further held that when these vacancies arise within six months from the receipt of the recommendation of the Public Service Commission they have to be filled up out of the waiting list maintained by the Commission. (11). In the case of Madan Lal & Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashniir & Ors., AIR 1995 SC 1088 , it was held that if the requisition is sent for filling up 11 vacancies and it does not include any anticipated vacancies, the recruitment to be initiated by the Commission could be for selecting 11 suitable candidates. (11). In the case of Madan Lal & Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashniir & Ors., AIR 1995 SC 1088 , it was held that if the requisition is sent for filling up 11 vacancies and it does not include any anticipated vacancies, the recruitment to be initiated by the Commission could be for selecting 11 suitable candidates. The Commission may by abundant caution prepare a merit list of 20 or even 30 candidates as per their interse ranking on merits,, but such a merit list will have a maximum life of one year from the date of publication or till all the required appointments are made whichever event happened earlier, i.e. if the requisition for recruitment is for 11 vacancies and the merit list gets exhausted, or if during the span of one year from the dale of publication of such list all the ii vacancies are not filled in, the moment the year is over the list gets exhausted. In either event, therefore, if further vacancies are to be filled in or remaining vacancies are to be filled in, after one year, a fresh process of recruitment is to be initiated giving a fresh opportunity to all the open market candidates to compete. For the reasons that appointments were challenged over and above the notified vacancies by a candidate who was not selected, no interference was made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the ground that person who have been appointed had not been made party. (12). The advertisement itself stipulated that number of vacancies as well of the Vacancies for reserved categories can be increased. Vide Annexure-6 it is clarified by the Government that the persons can only be appointed by reserved list in two contingencies; (i) if any person selected and recommended fails to join and (ii) if by -any reason the vacancy falling in same year could not be advertised and in such situation, it is provided that appointment can be made out of reserved list. (13). From the facts mentioned above, it is clear that immediately after receipt of 10 recommendations for which the advertisement was issued and also after having appointed the said ten persons, the department came to the conclusion that two more vacancies were available of the same year and requisition was sent to the RPSC to sent the names from the reserve list. It seems from such reserve list, two appointments were made to the persons who were at No. 1 and 5, but from the reserved category. Shri Meena had not joined and in that situation the next candidate to Meena in the reserved category was to be offered the job on the post. On receipt of further requisition as on 10.1997, the Commission instead of sending two names had sent all six names on the reserve list and the respondent State without sending any further requisition and without showing whether the vacancies were available or not or it related to which year or whether was falling under the rules or any instructions, had offered the appointment to all the candidates on the waiting list. This action of the respondent cannot be held to be legal. It is settled law that list stands exhausted, the moment the vacancies are filled up and in such situation there is no question of filing of any post from the reserve list. But if the rule so permit as was held in Virendra S. Hooda’s case (supra) that if there are any rules or instructions, the instructions are relevant and cannot be ignored and are not to be ignored if implemented upon. So far offer of appointment to Ashok Kumar Bansal who was at No. 1 on the reserve list, no fault can be made i.e. the department was authorised to fill up two vacancies of the same year of advertisement for which advertisement was made i.e. 1996-97 strictly as per the merit of the reserve list and if any vacancy was to be filled up from reserved category on any rosier point, that was to be offered to such person and all other appointments made over and above cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. (14). From the above-said discussion, at the most only two vacancies belonging to the same year for which the requisition was sent by the department to the RPSC could have been filled up out of reserved list. Mr. Bansal in Writ Petition No. 2987/2000 was at No.1 on the reserve list had righlly been appointed, strictly in accordance with merit list and strictly in accordance with merit out of waiting and reserved list. The writ petition of Ashok Kumar Bansal is allowed and the impugned order is setaside viz, a viz. Ashok Kumar Bansal. (15). Mr. Bansal in Writ Petition No. 2987/2000 was at No.1 on the reserve list had righlly been appointed, strictly in accordance with merit list and strictly in accordance with merit out of waiting and reserved list. The writ petition of Ashok Kumar Bansal is allowed and the impugned order is setaside viz, a viz. Ashok Kumar Bansal. (15). Second vacancy was offered to one Mr. Meena who was from amongst the reserved category i.e. the Scheduled Caste even though he was at No.5 on the reserved/waiting list. Mr. Meena did not join and as such this vacancy is to be offered in accordance with law and the rules as may be applicable for filling up such vacancy. (16). Except filling up of two vacancies as mentioned above and as per requisition, the action of the respondent so far remaining petitioners for four remaining vacancies is concerned is upheld and no interference is called for. (17). The writ petition of Ashok Kumar Bansal is allowed and the remaining writ pctilions are disposed of with the above-said observations.