JUDGMENT 1. - By these two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners who claim to have been placed in the reserve list for recruitment to Rajasthan Judicial Service ["RJS" for short hereinafter) have sought direction that the reserve list be operated and they should be given appointments to the posts of Civil Judge in the RJS. 2. Briefly, the facts are that on 19th February, 1998 the Registrar General of the Rajasthan High Court addressed a communication to the Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Law and Legal Affairs Department, Jaipur informing that the number of existing and anticipated vacancies in the RJS upto 31st December, 1998 had been worked out to be 81. The communication gave brake-up regarding reservations in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhaney v. Union of India, reported in 1993(1) SCT 448 (SC) : AIR 1993 SC 477 : (1993 Lab IC 129). A request was made in the said letter that the requisition be sent to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer ("RPSC" for short hereinafter) for advertising 81 vacancies for recruitment to the RJS. In the end, it is stated in the said letter : "You are further requested to ask the RPSC to prepare a reserve list of the candidates upto 50% of the advertised vacancies as provided in Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1995." 3. We have quoted the portion of the said letter because a lot will turn on the same for purpose of decision of this case. In pursuance of the requirement notified by the High Court to the State Government an advertisement was issued on 19th December, 1998 regarding 81 vacancies in the RJS to be filled through direct recruitment. In the advertisement it was mentioned that the number of posts may be increased or decreased. A revised advertisement in respect of the aforesaid posts was issued by the RPSC on 4th January, 1999. The advertisement only extended the last date for submission of application forms. This advertisement was published in Rajasthan Rozgar Sandesh on 1st February, 1999. The advertisement provided that the selection process was to comprise of written test followed by interview and final merit list was to be prepared on the basis of the aggregate marks secured in written examination and interviews. This advertisement was published in Rajasthan Rozgar Sandesh on 1st February, 1999. The advertisement provided that the selection process was to comprise of written test followed by interview and final merit list was to be prepared on the basis of the aggregate marks secured in written examination and interviews. By a notification dated 11th January, 1999 issued by the State Government 28 new posts were created in the RJS. It is the case of the petitioners that these 28 posts were not included in the 81 posts notified by the High Court as vacant posts to the State Government and for which the RPSC had issued advertisement for recruitment. The petitioners claim that the reserve list was meant to take care of such a situation. The reserve list consisting 28 names, therefore, has to be operated and appointments are to be made from the candidates in the said list. On the other hand, the stand of the respondents which includes the State Government, the High Court and the RPSC is that these posts are included in the 81 posts notified in the advertisement for purposes of selection. The respondents have stated that all existing vacancies as on 19th December, 1997 and anticipated vacancies upto 31st December, 1998 including 30 new courts (posts ?) to be created in terms of statement made by the State Government before the High Court for opening 180 more courts upto the end of Ninth Five Year Plan, i.e. upto 31st March, 2002, constituted 81 vacancies for which requisition was sent to the RPSC. The respondents have stated in clear and unambiguous terms that the said new posts were taken into consideration while determining the number of vacancies as 81. 4. Written examinations were held on 23rd and 25th May, 1999 while interviews were held from 27th October to 4th November, 1999. The result of the selection process was declared on 4th November, 1999 by the RPSC. 81 persons were placed in the select list while 28 persons were placed in the reserve list by the RPSC. The petitioners claim that they are included in the said reserve list of 28 persons. On 25th November, 1999, the RPSC forwarded the main select list to the State Government. On 24th May, 2000, the reserve list was forwarded by the RPSC to the State Government. The petitioners claim that they are included in the said reserve list of 28 persons. On 25th November, 1999, the RPSC forwarded the main select list to the State Government. On 24th May, 2000, the reserve list was forwarded by the RPSC to the State Government. On 30th June, 2000, appointment orders were issued in respect of 81 persons placed in the select list. Ultimately, the High Court decided not to operate the reserve list which led to the present writ petitions being filed on 20th March, 2001 and 9th April, 2001 respectively. The High Court has also stated that soon after completion of this selection process, fresh process was started. 5. The question for consideration in the present cases, therefore, is what is the efficacy and legal force of the reserve list ? In other words, what are the legal rights of the persons placed in the reserve list prepared by a Public Service Commission in pursuance of recruitment process undertaken by it ? 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners conceded that for determining the above question, the most important thing to be seen is the provision contained in the relevant rule. In the present case, the relevant rule is Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955, which is reproduced as under : "19. List of candidates approved by the Commission - (1) The Commission shall prepare a list of the candidates recommended by them for direct recruitment in order of their proficiency as disclosed by their aggregate marks. If two or more of such candidates obtain equal marks in the aggregate the Commission shall arrange them in order of merit on the basis of their general suitability for service : Provided that the Commission shall not recommend any candidate who has failed to obtain a minimum of 45% of marks in aggregate both of Written and Oral Examinations : Provided further that while selecting candidates for the vacancies so advertised, the Commission may (i) if intimation of additional requirement is sent to the Commission before the selection and (ii) if suitable persons are available, keep on their reserve list more candidates whose number shall not exceed 50% of the advertised vacancies, the names of such candidates may be recommended on requisition to the appointing authorities within six months from the date on which the original list is forwarded by the Commission to the Government. (2) Two copies of such list shall be submitted by the Commission to the Rajpramukh." 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners fairly stated the correct legal position, i.e. the efficacy or enforceability of the reserve list depends on the status given to it under the Rules and the relevant facts on record. The requisition sent by the Registrar General of this Court, relevant portion whereof has been quoted hereinbefore, is to be seen in the context of the second proviso to Rule 19. Does the said communication from the Registrar General satisfy the requirements of the second proviso to Rule 19 is a question which we consider as fundamental for decision of the present case. When we analyse the provision, the following conditions emerge : (a) The intimation regarding preparation of reserve list should be received by the Commission while selecting candidates for the vacancies advertised. (b) The intimation has to be for additional requirement. (c) It should be sent before selection. (d) Suitable persons should be available. (e) Such suitable persons should be kept on the reserve list which should not exceed 50% of the advertised vacancies. (f) The names on the reserve list are to be recommended on requisition to the appointing authority within six months from the date on which original list was forwarded by the Commission to the Government. 8. In the present case, the communication sent by the Registrar General does not satisfy Conditions (a) and (b). It will be seen from the letter of the Registrar General, relevant portion whereof has been quoted hereinabove, that the requisition regarding reserve list was included in the same letter by which the Commission was required to prepare a select list. Thus, the requisition was not sent during the period when the Commission was selecting candidates. Secondly, the intimation does not talk of additional requirement. It simply says "Prepare a reserve list - as provided in Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955." 9. A bare perusal of Rule 19 as a whole, with reference to the second proviso shows that a reserve list envisaged therein has to be regarding additional requirement. The letter of the Registrar General under reference does not talk of additional requirement at all. It follows from the language used in the said letter while referring to reserve list that the same has been mentioned in a very routine manner. The letter of the Registrar General under reference does not talk of additional requirement at all. It follows from the language used in the said letter while referring to reserve list that the same has been mentioned in a very routine manner. If the additional requirement was envisaged right at the initial stage when the requisition for a select list was being sent, it could have obviously been included in the number of posts to be filled for which the main list was sought. Therefore, it is apparent that there was no additional requirement in contemplation or envisaged when the initial letter was written. This inference drawn by us fits in with the statements made on affidavit by the respondents filed in reply to the writ petitions that the total number of vacancies was of eighty one posts when the requisition was sent to the RPSC through the State Government. The respondents have categorically stated that this figure of 81 included the 30 new posts which were to be created during the year 1998 as per the statement made by the State Government before the High Court regarding creation of 180 new courts upto 31st March, 2002 on yearly basis. In our considered view, the reserve list in the present case does not satisfy the requirements under Rule 19 and cannot be said to be a reserve list which confers any right for appointment on the petitioners. 10. As already observed the legal status of a reserve list depends on the relevant rule. Further the relevant rule is to be read in the light of facts on record. As a general rule it may not be wrong to state that a reserve list cannot be operated for vacancies which were not in anticipation or contemplation at the time initiation of selection process. A reserve list is normally intended to fill up gaps arising on account of non-joining or the like by the selected candidates. The reason being that for a rare case the entire selection process may not have to be gone through all over again. However, if the relevant service rule provides that the reserve list be prepared to take care of future vacancies the appointing authority may have to draw upon the reserve list depending on the period prescribed in the rule for which such a list can be kept alive. However, if the relevant service rule provides that the reserve list be prepared to take care of future vacancies the appointing authority may have to draw upon the reserve list depending on the period prescribed in the rule for which such a list can be kept alive. In the present case, Rule 19 is the only relevant rule. The said rule has the provision regarding life of the reserve list that the requisition regarding the reserve list should be received from the appointing authority within six months from the date on which the original list is forwarded by the Commission to the Government. The Rule does not refer to a reserve list being prepared for purposes of future vacancies nor does it talk of life of the reserve list. Normally when a reserve list is intended for future vacancies, life of the list is prescribed in the relevant rule itself. A reserve list cannot remain alive for indefinite period. It adversely affects the right to seek employment of persons who acquire eligibility for the posts in question in future. In our view, Rule 19 does not confer the status of a select list on the reserve list envisaged in the said Rule. The Rule does not confer any right on the candidates on reserve list with respect to future vacancies. 11. The learned counsel for the parties cited various cases in support of their respective contentions. In our view, for deciding the present cases, what is of utmost importance is the facts on record and the relevant Rule under consideration. We have discussed the position of the present case in that light. The cases cited before us turn on their own facts. Some of the cases cited before us need be mentioned. They are : A.P. Aggarwal v. Govt. NCT of Delhi, (2000) 1 SCC 600 : ( AIR 2000 SC 205 ) The facts of this case are totally different and the case has no bearing on the controversy in hand. The appellant and another candidate were the only two candidates included in the panel prepared for filling up a post of Member, Sales-Tax Appellate Tribunal. The other candidate joined in December, 1997 but had to leave on 4th January. 1998 because he was selected as Member, Income- Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appellant's contention was that he should have been appointed when the other candidate left. The other candidate joined in December, 1997 but had to leave on 4th January. 1998 because he was selected as Member, Income- Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appellant's contention was that he should have been appointed when the other candidate left. In respect of this, the Government initiated process for fresh selection. The decision of the case turned on the provision contained in Section 13(4) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, according to which a vacancy for the membership of the Appellate Tribunal was to be filled up as soon as practicable. The relevant OM dated 14-5-1987 issued by the Central Government also provided that reserve lists may be operated in cases where a vacancy is created by a candidate resigning the post or in the event of his death within a period of six months from the date of his joining the post. Keeping these two provisions in view it was held that the appellant who was also included in the select panel ought to have been given appointment on resignation by the person initially appointed. Thus, in this case, both the candidates were on the select panel and secondly, the statute as well as Government instructions required the post to be filled up as soon as practicable. Therefore, appointment was given to the next person on the select list. 12. The facts of the present cases noted above are entirely different. The petitioners were not on the select list. All the vacancies during the particular year for which selection process was undertaken were included in the requisition and for the vacancies of the subsequent period fresh selection process was immediately started after completion of the selection process in question. Therefore, this case is of no assistance to the petitioner. Virender S. Hooda v. State of Haryana, 1999(2) SCT 652 (SC) : (1999) 3 SCC 696 : (1999 Lab IC 1838) 13. In 1991, the Haryana Public Service Commission advertised 12 posts of Haryana Civil Services. On completion of selection, final list was published on 19-6-1992. The appellants did not find place in the merit list.Their contention, however, was that some of the selected candidates did not join and therefore, the appellants should have been considered against the vacancies so arisen depending upon the ranking obtained by the appellants in the competitive examination. On completion of selection, final list was published on 19-6-1992. The appellants did not find place in the merit list.Their contention, however, was that some of the selected candidates did not join and therefore, the appellants should have been considered against the vacancies so arisen depending upon the ranking obtained by the appellants in the competitive examination. They relied on some circulars to the effect that vacancies arising within six months from receipt of the select list should be filled up from waiting list maintained by the Commission. The case was decided on the basis of the circulars of the Government and the State was directed to consider the cases of appellants for appointment. 14. The present case is clearly distinguishable on facts. It is not a case of selected candidates not joining, nor there are any circulars which can be relied upon or enforced as was in the case before the Supreme Court. The petitioners in the present case are claiming appointments to additional posts, which as per the case of the respondents never formed part of the selection process. Dr. Umakant v. Dr. Bhikalal Jain, 1991(3) SCT 256 (SC) : (1992) 1 SCC 105 : (1991 Lab IC 2222) 15. This case was strongly relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioners. However, in our view, the facts in this case are totally different and, therefore, the case is of no assistance to the petitioners. The University of Rajasthan had invited applications for the post of Professor in the Department of Botany. The Selection Committee constituted under Section 5 of the relevant Act selected one 'N' for the said post and also recommended the name of the appellant in the reserve list in terms of Section 6(4) of the Act. The syndicate approved the recommendation of the Committee and appointed 'N' for the post. Initially, the reserve list was to remain valid upto six months but later the Syndicate by its resolution passed in its Special meeting extended the period of validity of the list to one year from the date of approval of the Syndicate. Before expiry of the extended period of operation of the reserve list, 'N' retired from service and thereupon appellant who was already in the reserve list was appointed to the post of Professor in Botany. Before expiry of the extended period of operation of the reserve list, 'N' retired from service and thereupon appellant who was already in the reserve list was appointed to the post of Professor in Botany. Those who were not selected filed a writ petition in the High Court contending inter alia that once the selected person joins the post, the reserve list exhausts itself. The High Court accepted the contention that the reserve list stood exhausted and held that the appointment of the appellant was illegal. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal holding that was clear from a reading of Section 5 with Section 6(4) that the Selection Committee constituted shall recommend not only the candidates selected by it in order of merit but shall further prepare a reserve list to the extent of 50% of vacancies and persons kept in reserve list will be considered as having been selected for the concerned post and shall be entitled for appointment if any vacancy is caused during the validity period of the reserve list. 16. There is no such statutory provision in the case before us. Further, in the present case, the petitioners are not claiming appointment to any vacancy occurring after the posts are filled from the select list. The petitioners are seeking appointment to additional posts, which according to them, occurred after the selection process had started, which assertion has been denied by the respondents. Thus, the claim of the petitioners in the present case is regarding additional posts and further the petitioners claim that the reserve list which contains their names, is as good as the select list. According to them, there is no difference between the two lists. As already discussed hereinbefore, we have accepted the case of the respondents that the alleged additional posts were taken into consideration while computing the vacancies as eighty one. Therefore, there is no occasion to contend that there were additional twenty eight or thirty posts to which appointments are being claimed by the petitioners. Another important distinguishing feature between Dr. Umakant's case (1991 Lab IC 2222) (supra) and the present case, is that the University Syndicate had extended the life of the reserve list and the vacancy had occurred during the extended life of the reserve list. Therefore, we are unable to derive any assistance from Dr. Umakant's case (1991 Lab. Another important distinguishing feature between Dr. Umakant's case (1991 Lab IC 2222) (supra) and the present case, is that the University Syndicate had extended the life of the reserve list and the vacancy had occurred during the extended life of the reserve list. Therefore, we are unable to derive any assistance from Dr. Umakant's case (1991 Lab. IC 2222) (supra) for the proposition being canvassed on behalf of the petitioners. 17. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents cited several judgments in support of their case that once appointments are made and the selection process is complete, the reserve fist cease to operate. In the first instance, our attention was drawn to Thrissur District Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Delson Davis P., reported in 2002(2) SCT 998 (SC) : (2002) 2 JT (SC) 329. The facts in this case were that the appellant bank had invited applications for posts of clerk-cum-cashier, Data Entry Officer and peons. So far as the post of Data Entry Officer is concerned, there was only one post. On completion of the selection process, one TD Rolly was placed at No. 1 while the respondent No. 1 was placed at second position in the select panel. Rolly joined the service, however, after some time, he resigned. The respondent No. 1 approached the Bank seeking appointment in place of Rolly. He was given temporary appointment. The respondent No. 1 approached the High Court and the High Court gave direction for giving permanent appointment to the respondent No. 1. The Bank appealed to the Supreme Court. The Apex Court observed. "when once the selection process is complete and appointment had been made, that process comes to an end and if any vacancy arises on the appointee having joined the post leaves the same, it must be treated as a fresh vacancy and fresh steps in accordance with appropriate rules should be taken. "The Bench relied on an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Raghbir Chand Sharma, reported in 2002(2) SCT 234 (SC) : AIR 2001 SC 2900 , which was a case in which applications were invited in respect of only one post. The first candidate in the select panel accepted the offer and came to be appointed. The first candidate in the select panel accepted the offer and came to be appointed. On resignation by the candidate so appointed, did other candidates on the panel have a legitimate right to claim appointment ?The Supreme Court expressed the view that on appointment being made the select panel ceases to exist. 18. In State of Bihar v. The Secretarial Assistant Successful Examinees Union, 1986 reported in 1994(1) SCT 522 (SC) : (1993) 6 JT (SC) 462 : (1994 Lab. IC 676) it was held that a panel candidate on the select list did not have a right to appointment merely on account of being empanelled. Empanelment at best, is a condition of eligibility for purposes of appointment and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed unless relevant service rules provide for it. Same principle was reiterated in Munna Roy v. Union of India, reported in 2001(1) SCT 63 (SC) : (2000) 9 SCC 283 : (2001 Lab IC 2121). 19. Surinder Singh v. State of Haryana, reported in 2002(1) SCT 681 (SC) : (2001) 5 JT (SC) 461 was a case in which posts of Additional Ahalmads were to be filled up in two phases. Applications were invited for 10 posts for the first phase. Vacancies of the first phase were filled up. However, 10 vacancies of second phase were also filled up without issuing any advertisement for the second phase.It was held that appointments of the candidates in the second phase were rightly quashed by the High Court. The District Judge had tried to justify the appointments of the second phase on the ground of urgency and to save time and expenses for holding another examination for purpose of selection. The Supreme Court observed that if such a reasoning is to prevail, then most of the subsequent selections can be made out of any previous selection without advertising the vacancies. The reasons for selection cannot rob future prospective candidates of opportunity and right to be considered for appointment. When an advertisement specifies a particular number of posts, only that particular number of posts are to be filled. In this case, the advertisement was for 10 posts. Selection for 20 posts which were to be filled up in two phases with respect to two different years was held to be wrong and unjustified. 20. When an advertisement specifies a particular number of posts, only that particular number of posts are to be filled. In this case, the advertisement was for 10 posts. Selection for 20 posts which were to be filled up in two phases with respect to two different years was held to be wrong and unjustified. 20. Our own High Court had occasion to observe in this connection, in Maharshi Dayanand University, Ajmer v. R.K. Vyas, reported in 2002(1) WLC (Raj.) 87 : (2002 Lab IC 449) that a reserve list lapses on appointment of duly selected persons. 21. Another recent Division Bench decision of this Court in Dr. M. K. Gaur v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2002(2) Rajasthan LR 39 , to which one of us (the Chief Justice) was a party, contains observations which are relevant for the point in issue, so far as the legal aspect is concerned. On facts, the case was different because of the contents of the relevant decisions of the Apex Court. The net result of the discussion on the legal issue was that requisition by the Government from reserve list can be only in relation to the select list prepared by the RPSC and not beyond that. It cannot in any case be in relation to posts which were not the subject matter of selection. It was held that appointments cannot be made from reserve list on unadvertised vacancies which are not subject matter of selection. Rule 20 of the relevant Rules provided for preparation of a select list by the Commission, in accordance with merit of candidates and it was to be forwarded to the Government. Proviso to Rule says that the Commission shall prepare a reserve list to the extent of 100% of the select list and that shall be operated if requisition is made by the Government within the existence of the reserve list. The requisition by the Government from the reserve list shall be in relation to the select list prepared by the Commission and not beyond that or not in relation to posts which were not the subject matter of selection under Rule 16. As soon as the selection of the candidates of the advertised vacancies culminates into giving appointments on the vacancies advertised the reserve list comes to an end. As soon as the selection of the candidates of the advertised vacancies culminates into giving appointments on the vacancies advertised the reserve list comes to an end. It revives only in the eventuality of select list becoming re-operative on account of non-joining of selected candidates or on appointed candidates leaving the posts soon after joining during the existence of the select list which has its own life under the rules. 22. General principles of law that emerge in relation to operation of select lists and reserve lists are as under. We, however, make it clear that these are only general principles and may not hold the field in cases where the position of the relevant service rules is to the contrary: (1) The candidates who are placed in select list or reserve list have no vested legal right of appointment. Mandamus cannot be issued to direct appointment of persons from such lists. The administration may have strong reasons to abandon the selection process in a given case. Thus, mere fact that a person is placed in the select list does not confer a vested right of appointment on him. (2) it is incumbent upon the authorities to take into account existing and anticipated vacancies before issuing an advertisement for recruitment to a particular post. It is not a matter of course that authorities can fill up vacancies other than the advertised. This means that normally appointments cannot be made against unadvertised vacancies, which are not subject matter of selection. A waiting list or a reserve list cannot be used as a perennial source of recruitment for filling posts which were not advertised. (3) On appointments being made, the subject panel ceases to exist and once the selection process is over, reserve list cannot be operated. 23. Applying the above principles to the fact of the present case, it follows that the select list was operated and the 81 candidates of the select list were offered appointments. All the advertised vacancies were filled and the selection process came to an end. An additional fact in the present case is that fresh selection process was started soon after the selection process was completed. This renders the case of the petitioners, who were on the reserved list, totally devoid of any merit. The candidates on the reserve list have no case. An additional fact in the present case is that fresh selection process was started soon after the selection process was completed. This renders the case of the petitioners, who were on the reserved list, totally devoid of any merit. The candidates on the reserve list have no case. DB Civil Writ Petition No. 2376/2001, Durga Singh v. State of Rajasthan and another 24. An additional argument raised on behalf of the petitioner in this case is that the petitioner was the senior-most candidate on the reserve list, i.e. he was at the top of the reserve list. One of the candidates in the select list, namely, A.S. Agarwal resigned from service after a few months of joining and, therefore, the petitioner claims he should have been given appointment on the vacancy caused due to resignation of A.S. Agarwal. 25. In normal course, it could be possible to say that on vacancies occurring on account of resignation or death of candidates appointed from the select list, vacancies should be filled from the reserve list. But in the present case, such a claim by the candidate in the reserve list is not tenable. The reason for this is that A.S. Agarwal resigned after about five months of joining. He joined on 01-8-2000 and resigned on 06-1-2001. In the meanwhile the selection process was over. It has already come on record that soon after completion of the selection process on 30-06-2000, it was decided to start fresh selection process. On such a decision being taken, the reserve list ceased to have any force or value. 26. The reserve list could not be said to have been kept alive till January, 2001 when A.S. Agarwal resigned. It was never known that A.S. Agarwal was going to resign in January, 2001. Therefore, the petitioner in the present case has no right to seek appointment merely on the basis of the fact that he was at Serial No. 1 on the reserve list. The claim of the petitioner is without any merit and deserves to be rejected. 27. Both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.Petitions dismissed. *******