JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner Kaushal Kumar Gupta for assailing the order Annex.8 dated 13.1.2012 passed by the respondent RPSC, Ajmer and praying for a direction to the respondents to offer him appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III in pursuance of an advertisement issued by the respondent RPSC in the year 2004 with all consequential benefits and also to direct appropriate action against the officials of RPSC & the State Govt. including their prosecution etc. 2. The case involves a chequered long standing history of extended and repeated litigation and thus, the facts relevant and essential for disposal of the writ petition are narrated herein below for the sake of ready reference. 3. The respondent RPSC advertised posts of Teacher Grade-III in the year 2004. The petitioner, a general category candidate claiming to be eligible applied and appeared in the written examination conducted by the RPSC. He secured 134 marks and upon being declared successful was summoned for interview. RPSC published cut off of the successful candidates in the general male category at 134 marks. The result of the recruitment process was declared on 5.1.2005. However, despite making the cut off, the petitioner's name was not recommended for appointment on which, he filed a writ petition no.4743/2006 in this Court. The respondents RPSC and the State Government took a stand in the said writ petition that the petitioner had secured 134 marks and his name was included in the merit list but he could not be recommended for appointment because as per the criterion applicable to the selection process, if more than one candidates secured same number of marks, those elder in age were to be given preference. Another candidate who had secured 134 marks was having date of birth as 16.6.1970 and the petitioner's date of birth was 18.10.1970, therefore, being younger in age, petitioner was not recommended for appointment by the RPSC. The said writ petition preferred by the petitioner was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 29.7.2008 in the following terms :- 4. Another candidate who had secured 134 marks was having date of birth as 16.6.1970 and the petitioner's date of birth was 18.10.1970, therefore, being younger in age, petitioner was not recommended for appointment by the RPSC. The said writ petition preferred by the petitioner was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 29.7.2008 in the following terms :- 4. In this view of the matter obviously, if vacancies were in existence during currency of waiting list, then it was obligatory, duty of the respondents to fill up those unfilled vacancies because the benefit of appointment was extended to the persons who secured similar marks which is 134 but was elder in age than the petitioner. 5. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III if unfilled vacancies were in existence within one year during currency of the merit list as per prescribed rules. It is also required to be observed that R.P.S.C. shall recommend the name of the petitioner for the purpose of recruitment on the post of Teacher Grade-III as per his selection for the vacancy which remained unfilled. The State Government shall also ascertain from the record whether any vacancy was in existence at the relevant time and if it is found that the vacancy was in existence then requisition may be sent to R.P.S.C. for recommending names of candidates as per merit prepared under the advertisement in question. If petitioner is found eligible then he shall be provided appointment after due consideration with all benefits from the date of appointment of the candidate who has secured same 134 marks as secured by the petitioner and he may be given benefit of notional fixation from the date when the person who was provided appointment having same marks in the merit list. This exercise may be completed within a period of two months from the date of filing certified copy of this order. No order as to costs." (Emphasis supplied) The above order passed by Single Bench of this Court was challenged by the State of Rajasthan by way of S.A.W. No.02748/2009 which was rejected on 27.5.2011 on the ground of delay. RPSC also preferred an appeal no.1257/2011 against the Single Bench judgment which too was dismissed on 4.11.2011 as being time barred. No order as to costs." (Emphasis supplied) The above order passed by Single Bench of this Court was challenged by the State of Rajasthan by way of S.A.W. No.02748/2009 which was rejected on 27.5.2011 on the ground of delay. RPSC also preferred an appeal no.1257/2011 against the Single Bench judgment which too was dismissed on 4.11.2011 as being time barred. However, despite pertinent directions given by this Court to consider and recommend case of the petitioner for appointment as Teacher Grade-III against the unfilled vacancies existing within one year during currency of the merit list, no action was forthcoming upon which, the petitioner filed a contempt petition no.23/2011 before this Court. While considering the said contempt petition, this Court directed on 8.2.2013 that the contemners shall remain personally present in the Court. The respondents filed an application seeking exemption from personal appearance of Secretary, RPSC which has been placed on record of the proceedings as Annex.6. In such application, following assertion was made on behalf of RPSC :- "2. That in the first instance, the order passed by this Hon'ble Court has been duly complied with and name of the petitioner has been recommended for appointment to the Education department. A copy of the order showing compliance of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court is placed on record as Annexure-R/1." (Emphasis supplied) 6. Copy of an order dated 19.2.2013 was annexed with the exemption application by which, the RPSC purportedly recommended the petitioner's name for appointment to the State Government. However soon thereafter, an application seeking amendment was filed on behalf of the RPSC contending that in the order dated 19.2.2013, the words "name of petitioner has been recommended for appointment to the Education department" may be read as "petitioner has been placed at Merit number ...". Finally an order dated 13.1.2012 came to be passed by the RPSC indicating that when the petitioner's case was reconsidered in light of this Court's judgment, it was found that as many as 16 seats remained vacant in the general category in the questioned recruitment process. However, by efflux of time, these vacancies were carried forward and filled up in the next recruitment year i.e. 2006 and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to be appointed on account of non-availability of vacant post. However, by efflux of time, these vacancies were carried forward and filled up in the next recruitment year i.e. 2006 and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to be appointed on account of non-availability of vacant post. The contempt petition was withdrawn by the petitioner on 23.10.2013 craving liberty to assail the order dated 13.1.2012 (Annex.8) passed by the RPSC which is under challenge in the instant writ petition. 7. The writ petition was filed in the year 2014. Notices were served on the RPSC as well as the State in July, 2014. Despite numerous opportunities being granted, reply was not filed upon which, this Court closed reply of the respondents by order dated 3.8.2016 and arguments of petitioner's counsel were heard. Thereafter, the counsels representing the State Government as well as RPSC filed affidavits reiterating the stance taken in the impugned order that as the vacancies of the corresponding year ceased to exist, the respondents were justified in not offering appointment to the petitioner in the questioned recruitment process. 8. Arguments were concluded on 19.12.2016. Shri Vishal Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the stance adopted by the RPSC in the impugned order as well as that by the State Government officials in the affidavits filed before this Court asserting that vacancies of the general category in the questioned recruitment process ceased to exist after one year as they were carried forward and filled up in the year 2006 is totally false and fabricated. Drawing attention of the Court to the proceedings dated 8.3.2008 held in the Rajasthan State Legislative Assembly in pursuance of a star question posed and the answer given thereto by the Education Minister, he urged that it was clearly given in writing by the Education Minister on the Assembly Floor that 12 posts of general category (male) remained vacant in the questioned recruitment process. He further drew attention of the Court to the reply given by the RPSC under RTI Act on the query made by one Ram Chandra Gupta along with which a list of candidates in the order of merit is annexed. In this list, the name of the petitioner appears at S.No.9. He further drew attention of the Court to the reply given by the RPSC under RTI Act on the query made by one Ram Chandra Gupta along with which a list of candidates in the order of merit is annexed. In this list, the name of the petitioner appears at S.No.9. He also referred to the following communications/letters issued by the Elementary Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur (placed on record in a consolidated manner) 12-12-2013 fcUnq la[;k 04] f'k{kd HkrhZ 2006 esa dsoy ek= Vh0,l0ih0 ,l0Vh0 ds 890 inksa dks gh cSdykWx ds :i esa lfEefyr fd;k x;k gSA 27-03-2014 fcUnq la[;k&01 o"kZ 2004 dh r`rh; Js.kh v/;kid HkrhZ ijh{kk esa lkekU; oxZ dh 'ks"k jgh fjfDr;ka o"kZ 2011 rd fjDr jghA fcUnq la[;k& 02 ,slk dksbZ vyx ls fu.kZ; ugha fy;k x;k] cfYd Qjojh 2012 esa foHkkx esa fjDr py jgs 41000 inksa dks Hkjus gsrq jkT; ljdkj ls Lohd`fr izkIr gqbZ Fkh] mlesa os in Hkh lfEefyr gks x;sA 19-05-2015 fcUnq la[;k 4 o 5& f'k{kd HkrhZ 2004 esa lkekU; oxZ ds 'ks"k jgs in f'k{kd HkrhZ 2006 esa lfEefyr ugha fd;s x;sA vr% foRr foHkkx dh vkbZ0Mh0 uacj fn;k tkuk laHko ugha gSA foHkkx ds }kjk dHkh Hkh lkekU; ds inksa dks HkrhZ 2006 esa lfEefyr fd;s tkus dk ugha fy[kk x;k gSA 29-08-2016 1- r`rh; Js.kh v/;kid HkrhZ ijh{kk 2004 dks HkrhZ ds ckn 'ks"k jgs 16 inksa dks vkxkeh r`rh; Js.kh v/;kid HkrhZ 2006 esa lfEefyr ugha fd;k x;k FkkA He also referred to the note-sheet (Annex.10) of the proceedings undertaken in RPSC regarding another candidate named Ramesh Krishan Vyas in relation to the corresponding recruitment process wherein it is recorded :- vkns'k iSjk 3@,u dh ikyuk esa fuosnu gS fd bl izdj.k dks fuLrkj.k vuqHkkx }kjk i= fnukad 11-05-2011 ds }kjk rRle; gh fuLrkfjr fd;k tk pqdk FkkA lwpukFkZA bl izdj.k dk uohure rF;kRed fooj.k bl izdkj ls gS fd izkFkhZ Jh jes'k d`".k O;kl] ukekad 321922 iq#”k izkIrkad 134-00@14-12-1972 mPp izkFk0 gsrq vkosnu fd;k FkkA bl ijh{kk esa iq#”k oxZ esa dqy 9876 in foKkfir fd, x, FksA rRle; bl oxZ ds fo:) 9865 inksa gsrq uke vfHkLrkfor fd, x, gSA bl izdkj mi;qZDr HkrhZ ijh{kk esa iq#”k oxZ ds 11 in fjDr gSA bl vH;FkhZ dk 'ks"k jgs vH;fFkZ;ksa esa ls vp;furksa esa 79oka LFkku gSA ;fn 79 iq#”k oxZ ds in fjDr jgrs gS rks ;kfp dk p;u laHko gks ik;sxk] vU;Fkk ugha gksxkA (Emphasis supplied) 9. Referring to these documents, Mr. Sharma contended that the stance adopted by the respondents RPSC as well as State Government in the affidavits filed after closure of their reply is totally false, misleading and amounts to perjury. He further contended that the plea taken by the respondents that the posts left unfilled in the questioned recruitment process ceased to exist because they were clubbed in the subsequent recruitment made in the year 2006 is totally false because two candidates at merit no.21984 and 24222 were recommended for appointment by the RPSC on 17.1.2011 as per the reply dated 13.9.2012 (Annex.21) given to a query made under the R.T.I. Act. He thus, urged that the stand adopted by the respondents regarding the vacancies of the questioned recruitment process having been filled up within one year of the currency of the merit list is totally false and fabricated and hence, the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed for in the writ petition which deserves to be accepted with heavy and exemplary costs upon the respondents. 10. Per contra, learned senior counsel Mr. J.P. Joshi assisted by Mr. Khet Singh representing the RPSC and learned AAG Mr. P.R. Singh representing the State Government vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel. They urged that the petitioner secured 134 marks in the competitive examination. He was not recommended for appointment as being younger in age than another candidate who secured same number of marks and stood at the same merit position as the petitioner. As such and in view of the guidelines adopted by RPSC, the elder candidate securing same number of marks became entitled to be and was recommended for appointment. 11. Shri J.P. Joshi urged that the vacancies of general category in the questioned recruitment process were carried forward and were filled up in the next recruitment made in year 2006 and ceased to exist by the time the order came to be passed in the petitioner's earlier writ petition. Thus, he contended that the petitioner was rightly denied appointment in the questioned recruitment process. However, Shri Joshi was tacitly silent regarding the admitted document of RPSC (Annex.10) available on record showing that the vacancies continued to be in existence till the year 2011. 12. Thus, he contended that the petitioner was rightly denied appointment in the questioned recruitment process. However, Shri Joshi was tacitly silent regarding the admitted document of RPSC (Annex.10) available on record showing that the vacancies continued to be in existence till the year 2011. 12. Learned AAG Shri P.R. Singh urged that RPSC did not recommend the petitioner's name to the State Government for appointment because the result of the recruitment process was declared on 5.1.2005 and the Full Commission in the meeting held in RPSC on 6.7.2006 took a decision to close the recruitment process. As regards the question raised in the Assembly floor in the year 2008. Shri Singh urged that the reply thereto was given on the basis of the information as supplied by the department with the details as existed in the year 2004 and thus, no right was created in favour of the petitioner. He thus urged that the writ petition should be dismissed as being devoid of any merit. 13. Affidavit of one Shri Rajesh Chandra Purohit, Additional District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Jodhpur has been filed on behalf of the respondent State Government wherein it is sworn on oath that 890 ST & TSP category backlog vacancies of the questioned recruitment process were included in the recruitment process of 2006. Likewise, the remaining unfilled posts of General, OBC, SC, ST, TSP categories were also requisitioned and re advertised in July, 2006. At para no.5 of the affidavit, it is stated :- "That no waiting list was issued by the RPSC which could have been operated for filling up the unfilled vacancies of the year 2004. That whatever vacancies which were available with the Department were advertised in the year 2006 and since the 84 vacancies which were part of the advertisement of 2004 remained unfilled they also were treated as vacancies of the year 2006 and the same were advertised in the year 2006 and were filled up." 14. The petitioner has filed a counter affidavit questioning veracity of the affidavit sworn by the Additional District Education Officer. 15. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the material available on record, this Court is of the firm opinion that the concerned officials of State Government as well as RPSC have made totally false and misleading assertions in the affidavits filed in the Court. 15. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the material available on record, this Court is of the firm opinion that the concerned officials of State Government as well as RPSC have made totally false and misleading assertions in the affidavits filed in the Court. In view of the documents referred to supra and various replies given by the education department under R.T.I. as well as the answer given by the Education Minister before the State Assembly, it is evident that 12 vacancies of general category were neither carried forward, clubbed nor re advertised in the recruitment process held in year 2006. Rather, it is manifest that the vacancies of unreserved quota were never re advertised and remained unfilled at least till the year 2011. This fact is evident from the above referred documents, most significant of them being the proceedings undertaken in relation to the writ petition no.9756/2007 filed by one Ramesh Krishan Vyas at the Jaipur Bench in which the respondent RPSC submitted a list of unselected candidates wherein the name of the petitioner figures at S.No.9 and the name of Ramesh Krishan Vyas figures at S.No.79. The justification offered by the respondents in reply filed to the said writ petition for not providing appointment to Ramesh Krishan Vyas was that he stood at S.No.79 in merit whereas only 11 vacancies were available. No such plea was apparently taken in that writ petition that the vacancies ceased to exist. 16. From the affidavits submitted by the respondents, it is further evident that one of the reasons offered for not recommending the petitioner's name is that RPSC did not prepare any reserve list and thus, the petitioner's name was neither recommended nor requisitioned. There cannot be any reason or justification behind the failure of RPSC to perform its lawful obligations. Undisputedly, as per the Rules of recruitment, RPSC was required to prepare a reserve list from the successful candidates so that future recommendations could be made against the seats which remained unfilled. Failure on the part of RPSC to act as per law cannot be used to detriment of the petitioner. 17. After arguments had been heard, Shri P.R. Singh learned Addl. Advocate General has filed written arguments on behalf of the State Govt. Failure on the part of RPSC to act as per law cannot be used to detriment of the petitioner. 17. After arguments had been heard, Shri P.R. Singh learned Addl. Advocate General has filed written arguments on behalf of the State Govt. In such written arguments which are verified by the officer-in-charge, it is mentioned that even if some vacancies remained unfilled, nothing could be done by the State Government. It is specifically mentioned at para no.6 of the written arguments that 890 of ST TSP category were included in the backlog and were carried forward in the subsequent recruitment process. 18. However, it may be noted here that the written arguments submitted by Shri Singh bear a stark silence regarding carrying forward of the general category vacancies and the filling up thereof in the subsequent recruitment process. 19. From the facts narrated above and the admitted documents available on record, this Court has no hesitation in holding that there definitely existed vacancies of general category in the questioned recruitment process for almost seven years after issuance of the initial merit list. RPSC, by failing to prepare a reserve list failed to perform the constitutional obligations cast upon it. 20. Furthermore, even if the argument advanced by Shri Singh regarding the decision taken by the Full Commission of RPSC in its meeting dated 6.4.2006 is accepted for the sake of it, then too it would be of no help whatsoever to the respondents. While deciding the earlier writ petition of the petitioner by judgment dated 29.7.2008, this Court clearly mandated that the case of the petitioner for appointment shall be considered if unfilled vacancies were in existence within one year during currency of the merit list. Admittedly, the result of the recruitment process was declared on 5.1.2005 and the resolution, if at all, adopted by the Full Commission recommending closure of the recruitment process was drawn up in June, 2006. Thus, without any doubt, the vacancies were in existence for a period of one year from the issuance of initial merit list. Admittedly, the result of the recruitment process was declared on 5.1.2005 and the resolution, if at all, adopted by the Full Commission recommending closure of the recruitment process was drawn up in June, 2006. Thus, without any doubt, the vacancies were in existence for a period of one year from the issuance of initial merit list. This fact is clearly manifest from the agenda item 5 of the Full Commission's meeting held on 6.4.2006 which is reproduced herein below for the sake of ready reference :- ,tsUMk vkbZVe la[;k 5 %& v/;kid&izkFkfed ,oa mPp izkFkfed f'k{kk bl laca/k esa vk;ksftr ijh{kk] 2004 dk ifj.kke fnukad 05-01-2005 dks ?kksf"kr dj fn;k x;k Fkk ysfdu ml p;fur lwph ds vk/kkj vH;fFkZ;ksa dh fu;qfDr laca/kh dk;Zokgh vHkh rd Hkh tkjh gS tks fu;e fo:) izrhr gksrh gSA vr% ;g fcUnq ekuuh; v/;{k dh vuqefr ls mi;ksx ds fopkjkFkZ j[kk x;kA fcUnq ds lHkh igyqvksa ij fopkj foe'kZ dj fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd ;fn fu;ekuqlkj p;u lwph ,oa vkjf{kr lwph fnukad 05-01-2005 dks gh tkjh dj nh gksrh rks vkjf{kr lwph Hkh vc rd VkbZe ckMZ gks pqdh gksrhA ,slh voLFkk esa ;fn foKkfir inksa ds vuq:i fu;qfDr dk dk;Z lEiUu ugha Hkh gqvk gS rks jkT; ljdkj }kjk vc vfrfjDr ukeksa dh lwph ekaxs tkus ij vk;ksx vlgefr O;Dr djrs gq, jkT; ljdkj dks lwfpr dj nsosa fd 'ks"k fjfDr;ksa dks Hkfo"; esa vk;ksftr gksus okyh ijh{kk esa Js.khokj lfEefyr dj fn;k tkosA 21. In a belated affidavit filed by Mr. A.N. Tripathy, Dy. Secretary, RPSC, there is no such plea that pursuant to the said resolution of the Full Commission, the vacancies were extinguished or that the recruitment process was ever considered culminated. So far as the plea made in the additional affidavit that fresh requisition was received by the RPSC for recruitment to the posts of Teacher Grade-III from the State Government on 25.7.2006 and the advertisement in pursuance thereof was issued on 30.10.2006 is concerned, the said plea would also not be of any help whatsoever to the respondents in as much as, firstly the State Government has clearly indicated in the written submissions that the vacancies of general category were not carried forward in the subsequent recruitment process. Only 890 backward class reserved vacancies were carried forward. Furthermore, the result of the questioned recruitment was declared on 5.1.2005. Only 890 backward class reserved vacancies were carried forward. Furthermore, the result of the questioned recruitment was declared on 5.1.2005. In view of the judgment dated 29.7.2008 rendered by this Court in the petitioner's earlier writ petition, the petitioner's entitlement had to be considered within the zone of one year during currency of the merit list. The said period of one year would operate till 5.1.2006 and admittedly by that date, no proposal was even in the offing to make fresh recruitment on the posts of Teacher Grade-III. 22. The plea regarding vacancies of general category having ceased to exist is totally falsified from the reply given to Shri Ram Chandra Gupta along with which the RPSC provided a merit list of non-selected candidates wherein the petitioner's name is mentioned at S.No.9. In the said reply, it is mentioned that one Ramesh Krishan Vyas was not given appointment as he stood at merit no.79 whereas only 12 vacancies were available. Writ petition of Ramesh Krishan Vyas was decided by the Jaipur Bench of this Court on 7.3.2011 and consequently, plea of the respondent RPSC regarding the general category vacancies having ceased to exist in the year 2006 itself is totally false and fabricated. 23. Even assuming for argument's sake the said plea is acceptable then too this Court has to consider as to whether the plea of the vacancies having expired can prejudice the crystallised rights of the petitioner. The issue was examined in detail by this Court in the case of Sarita Chaudhary. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9500/2014) decided on 11.9.2015 and the similar plea taken by the RPSC in the said case was repelled by this Court. Reliance was placed by this Court upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of J.& K. v. Satpal reported in AIR 2013 S.C. 1258 wherein it was held :- "9. The controversy in hand is yet another illustration of the denial of a legitimate claim, of an innocent citizen. Rather than appreciating the claim raised by the respondent before the High Court through SWP No.1156 of 2009, to which the appellants failed to even file their response, the same was ordered to be closed by an order dated 5.4.2010. Thereupon appellants have chosen to pursue a course, which would sideline the main controversy. Rather than appreciating the claim raised by the respondent before the High Court through SWP No.1156 of 2009, to which the appellants failed to even file their response, the same was ordered to be closed by an order dated 5.4.2010. Thereupon appellants have chosen to pursue a course, which would sideline the main controversy. The course adopted would neither serve their own purpose, nor the purpose of the respondent Sat Pal. 10. It is not a matter of dispute, that the respondent Sat Pal participated in a process of selection for recruitment against the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-II. It is also not in dispute, that his name figured in the merit/select list of scheduled caste candidates. Trilok Nath, who had been offered appointment against the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-II on 22.4.2008, did not join, despite the said offer of appointment. The instant fact is fully substantiated from the order dated 5.5.2008 issued by the Chief Engineer (R and B) Department, Jammu. Even though candidates who were higher in merit, were offered appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-II, for which recruitment was held, some of such posts remained vacant on account of the fact that persons higher in merit to the respondent Sat Pal had declined to join, despite having been offered appointment. At least one such vacancy offered to Trilok Nath never came to be filled up. In such a situation, the claim of the respondent Sat Pal whose name figured in the merit/select list, ought to have been offered appointment against the said post. The claim of respondent Sat Pal could not have been repudiated, specially on account of his assertion, that his name in the merit/select list amongst Scheduled Caste candidates immediately below the name of Trilok Nath, was not disputed even in the pleadings before this Court. It is not the case of the appellants before this Court, that any other candidate higher than Sat Pal in the merit/select list is available out of Scheduled Caste candidates, and can be offered the post against which Trilok Nath had not joined. 11. In view of the factual position noticed herein above, the reason indicated by the appellants in declining the claim of the respondent Sat Pal for appointment out of the waiting list is clearly unjustified. 11. In view of the factual position noticed herein above, the reason indicated by the appellants in declining the claim of the respondent Sat Pal for appointment out of the waiting list is clearly unjustified. A waiting list would start to operate only after the posts for which the recruitment is conducted, have been completed. A waiting list would commence to operate, when offers of appointment have been issued to those emerging on the top of the merit list. The existence of a waiting list, allows room to the appointing authority to fill up vacancies which arise during the subsistence of the waiting list. A waiting list commences to operate, after the vacancies for which the recruitment process has been conducted have been filled up. In the instant controversy the aforesaid situation for operating the waiting list had not arisen, because one of the posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-II for which the recruitment process was conducted was actually never filled up. For the reason that Trilok Nath had not assumed charge, one of the posts for which the process of recruitment was conducted, had remained vacant. That apart, even if it is assumed for arguments sake, that all the posts for which the process of selection was conducted were duly filled up, it cannot be disputed that Trilok Nath who had participated in the same selection process as the respondent herein, was offered appointment against the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-II on 22.4.2008. The aforesaid offer was made, consequent upon his selection in the said process of recruitment. The validity of the waiting list, in the facts of this case, has to be determined with reference to 22.4.2008, because the vacancy was offered to Trilok Nath on 22.4.2008. It is the said vacancy, for which the respondent had approached the High Court. As against the aforesaid, it is the acknowledged position recorded by the appellants in the impugned order dated 23.8.2011 (extracted above), that the waiting list was valid till May, 2008. If Trilok Nath was found eligible for appointment against the vacancy in question out of the same waiting list, the respondent herein would be equally eligible for appointment against the said vacancy. This would be the unquestionable legal position, insofar as the present controversy is concerned." (Emphasis supplied) 24. If Trilok Nath was found eligible for appointment against the vacancy in question out of the same waiting list, the respondent herein would be equally eligible for appointment against the said vacancy. This would be the unquestionable legal position, insofar as the present controversy is concerned." (Emphasis supplied) 24. Totally false and misleading pleas have been put forth by the officials of RPSC as well as the State Government in the affidavits filed before this Court asserting that the vacancies of the general category in the questioned recruitment process were carried forward, clubbed and filled in the recruitments made in the year 2006 and thus, no vacancy of general category existed within one year of the currency of the merit list in the questioned recruitment. As noticed above, it is manifest that even till the year 2011, vacancies of general category of the questioned recruitment process were in existence. As per the list provided by RPSC to Shri Ram Chandra Gupta under R.T.I. Act on 3.3.2014, the petitioner stood at S.No.9 in the merit whereas Shri Ramesh Krishan Vyas stood at S.No.79. Twelve vacancies admittedly being in existence till the year 2011, the petitioner was definitely entitled to be recommended for appointment in the questioned recruitment process. The State Government as well as RPSC officials have acted in a recalcitrant and fraudulent manner before this Court while defending the matter and denying appointment to the petitioner. Despite notices of the writ petition having been served way back in the year 2014, reply was intentionally not filed on behalf of either of the respondents. This conduct of the respondent authorities clearly shows that they were all along trying to avoid the issue because the possibility of difficult queries being posed by the Court was looming large before them. Not only this, when the Court took a tough view, affidavits were filed on behalf of the RPSC as well as the State Government with totally false pleas and acted in a totally malafide manner in order to defend their unjustified adamancy. 25. In view of the discussion made herein above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner deserves the relief claimed for while imposing heavy and exemplary costs on the State Government as well as the RPSC. 26. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 25. In view of the discussion made herein above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner deserves the relief claimed for while imposing heavy and exemplary costs on the State Government as well as the RPSC. 26. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to forthwith and not later than within a period of six weeks from today, offer appointment to the petitioner on the post of Teacher Grade-III in the questioned recruitment process. The appointment so made shall be effective from the date appointment order was issued to the candidates originally selected in the recruitment process in question. 27. Having held thus, the aspect regarding admissibility of consequential benefits to the petitioner needs to be examined. While deciding the petitioner's earlier writ petition vide order dated 29.7.2008, this Court clearly directed that the petitioner shall be provided appointment within a period of two months with all benefits from the date of appointment of the candidate who secured 134 marks alike the petitioner. The benefits prior to the passing of the order were made notional. In this background, this Court is of the opinion that despite not having worked on the post, the petitioner is definitely entitled to the actual monetary benefits from 29.7.2008 onwards. 28. The petitioner, despite being successful was denied his lawful dues by the respondent authorities for almost 10 years and has been inflicted pain and agony beyond comprehension. Thus, a cost of rupees two lacs each is imposed on the RPSC as well as the State Government for the indifference shown in pleading the matter and filing affidavits with patently false and misleading assertions. Cost upon being realised shall be paid to the petitioner for the pain and agony inflicted upon him owing to the recalcitrant attitude of the officers concerned. The Chief Secretary, State Government and the Chairman, RPSC are directed to take steps for identifying the erring officials and shall make efforts to recover the amount of cost from them after fixing their responsibility. A report of exercise taken in this regard be placed before this Court on 26.5.2017.