Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1840 (RAJ)

Dr. Rajendra Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2005-07-20

K.S.RATHORE

body2005
Judgment K.S. Rathore, J.-Brief facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued by the RPSC for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor (Orthopaedic) on 01.07.1997 and after conducting interview on 24.09.1997, send the names of the selected candidates to the Government and in accordance with the select list appointments were made. During the period of six months one temporary vacancy has arisen on account of the person who is holding the post has proceeded for long leave. To fill up this vacancy the Government vide letter dated 06.03.1998 sent the requisition to the RPSC with the request to send the name from the reserve list. 2. On 10.03.1998, the RPSC refused to send the name from and out of reserve list on the ground that the name can only be sent when a selected candidate failed to join the respective post whereas in the instant case, the vacancy occurs on account of person concerned proceeded on long leave and the same vacancy was not advertised and selection were not made against the said vacancy. Therefore, the RPSC refused to send the name. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the reserve list is valid upto six months and prior to the expiry to six months period, the list of selected candidate was forwarded by the RPSC to the Government. Requisition was sent by the Government to send the name out of the selected list, therefore, the petitioner deprived from appointment on the post of Assistant Professor (Orthopaedic). 4. The petitioner relied upon the Judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court dated 26th July 1996 rendered in DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 580/95 (Dr. Mrs. Anjum Saiyed vs. RPSC & Anr. wherein the Division Bench directed the Commission to send the names of the candidates as per the requisition made by the State Government keeping in view the vacancies that have arisen upto the date of the Corrigendum i.e., till 01.05.1993. After the appointments are made from the select list accordingly, the Government would be free to start giving appointments pursuant to the selection made by the Commission as per advertisement dated 012.1994. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the RPSC strongly objected and submits that the ratio decided by the Division Bench is not applicable to the instant case and is distinguishable. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the RPSC strongly objected and submits that the ratio decided by the Division Bench is not applicable to the instant case and is distinguishable. He submits that the case before the Division Bench was that the vacancy arisen on 01.05.1993 before the selection made by the Commission i.e., on 012.1994, therefore, the Court has directed to send the name out of the reserve list. Here in the instant case, the temporary vacancy for a period of one year arisen after the selection is over and the RPSC has rightly refused to send the name out of the reserve list as the vacancy is not permanent in nature and he placed reliance on the Judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case Dr. MK Gaur & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2002 (3) WLC (Raj.) 367 wherein the Division Bench has observed as under:-“As soon as the selection of candidates of the advertised vacancies culminates into giving of appointments on the vacancies advertised, the reserve list comes to an end. It revives only in the eventuality of the select list becoming re-operative on account of non-joining of the selected candidates or their leaving the post soon after joining during the existence of reserve list, which has life of its own under the Rule. On the face of proposition of law propounded by Apex Court, that a reserve list prepared in an examination conducted by the Commission does not constitute a source of recruitment, it is operative only in contingency that if any of the selected candidate does not join then the person from reserve list may be pushed up and appointed in the vacancies so caused or if there is come extreme exigency the Government may as a matter of policy decision pick up the persons in order of merit from the reserve/ waiting list and that the selection process comes to an end after the candidates from advertised vacancies are appointed.” 6. Having heard rival submissions of the respective parties and perusal of the Judgment cited by the respective parties, it is not disputed that the State sent the requisition for temporary vacancy created for only one year and not permanent in nature and the RPSC has refused to send the name as the vacancy is not arisen on account of non joining or resignation from the post after joining pursuant to the select list. 7. I am fully convinced with the submission made on behalf of the RPSC that the ratio decided by the Division Bench in the case of Dr. Anjum Saiyed (Supra) is not applicable to the instant case and the present controversy is covered by the Judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case MK Gaur (Supra), as the selection process in the instant case also comes to an end after the candidates from advertised vacancies are appointed. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim as a right for appointment on the temporary vacancy which was created only for one year and after this belated stage, no writ order or direction can be given to give appointment to the petitioner. 8. In view of the aforesaid observation, the writ petition has no merit and as such the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no orders as to cost.