JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. Instant writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs: "(a) By appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to issue the reshuffle result while excluding the incumbents who did not joint the duty and fill up the advertised vacancies pursuant to the advertisement No. 4474 dated 06.02.2018 (Annex. 1). (b) By appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to give appointment to humble petitioner on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-II) (Maths/Science) with all consequential benefits in pursuance to the advertisement dated 06.02.2018 (Annex. 1). (c) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly also is passed in favour of the petitioner." 2. The petitioner's basic grievance raised in the present writ petition is that the respondents have issued a select list of 428 candidates (vide orders No. 36733 & 36734 dated 04.09.2018) and on the same date issued a reserve list of 215 candidates, (vide order No. 36735), even before calling the candidates for documents verification. According to the petitioner, the same was illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the scheme of selection given in the advertisement. 3. For the purpose of deciding the issue raised in the present writ petition, facts apropos are noted hereinfra: (3.1) An advertisement No. 4474 dated 06.02.2018, was issued by the Director, Sanskrit Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur for the purpose of filling up 428 posts of Teacher Grade-III - level 2 in the subjects Science - Maths for non-TSP area. (3.2) According to the terms of the advertisement, the selection was to be made after preparing State level merit list on the basis of marks obtained in the RTET/REET Examination and marks obtained in graduation, subject albeit to securing minimum passing marks in RTET/REET. (3.2) According to the terms of the advertisement, the selection was to be made after preparing State level merit list on the basis of marks obtained in the RTET/REET Examination and marks obtained in graduation, subject albeit to securing minimum passing marks in RTET/REET. The eligibility condition reads thus: ^^lkekU; lwpuk %& mPp izkFkfed ¼xf.kr&foKku] vaxzsth½ fo|ky; v/;kid f}rh; ysoy d{kk 6 ls 8 dh lh/kh HkrhZ gsrq ojh;rk lwph (Merit List) esa 'kkfey gksus ds fy, vH;FkhZ dks jktLFkku v/;kid ik=rk ijh{kk (RTET) ;k (REET) es U;wure 60 izfr'kr mŸkh.kkZd (Minimum Passing Marks) vftZr djuk vfuok;Z gksxk ijarq jkT; ljdkj dh vf/klwpuk Øekad F.7(1)EE/Plan/2011 fnuakd 29-08-2012 ds vuqlkj vuqlwfpr {ks=ks (Scheduled Area’s) ds vuqlwfpr tutkfr ds vH;fFkZ;ksa ds fy;s U;wure 36 izfr'kr mŸkhZ.kkZd (Minimum Passing Marks) vfuok;Z gksxk] ijarq vf/klwpuk tkjh gksus ls iwoZ gksxhA jktLFkku v/;kid ik=rk ijh{kk (REET) 2015 ,o (RTET) 2011 o 2012 dh rhuksa o"kksZ dh ijh{kkvks esa ls ftlesa vf/kdre izkIrkad gS mlds dqy izkIrkad izfr'kr dk 70 izfr'kr ,oa Lukrd ijh{kk esa dqy izkIrkad izfr'kr dk 30 izfr'kr fy;k tkdj dqy 100 izfr'kr esa ls jkT; Lrjh; ojh;rk lwph (Merit List) cukbZ tkdj HkrhZ dh tk;sxhA^^ (3.3) Another important condition in the form of Condition No. 7 was appended with the Special Note of the advertisement, according to which the respondent No. 3 was required to prepare a State-level merit list based on a formula taking weighted average, i.e. 70% of the marks obtained in RTET/REET Examination and 30% of the marks secured in graduation. Condition No. 7 reads thus: ^^¼7½ jktLFkku v/;kid ik=rk ijh{kk (RTET 2011, RTET 2012, REET 2015) es ls vf/kdre izkIrakd izfr'kr dk 70 izfr'kr ,oa Lukrd ijh{kk esa dqy izkIrkad izfr'kr dk 30 izfr'kr fy;k tkdj dqy 100 izfr'kr esa ls jkT; Lrjh; eSfjV cukbZ tk;sxhA^^ (3.4) The respondent No. 3 issued orders No. 36733 & 36734 dated 04.09.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the 'first list') and notified names of 428 candidates, captioning the list as ^^vLFkk;h p;u lwph^^ (Provisional Select List) calling them for documents verification on 01.10.2018 & 03.10.2018. (3.5) Vide another Order (No. 36735) of the even date, another list (hereinafter referred to as the 'second list') came to be issued by the respondent No. 3, giving out list of 215 candidates and the same was labelled as reserve list. (3.5) Vide another Order (No. 36735) of the even date, another list (hereinafter referred to as the 'second list') came to be issued by the respondent No. 3, giving out list of 215 candidates and the same was labelled as reserve list. (3.6) It is an admitted fact that after documents verification of these 643 incumbents - 428 candidates of the first list and 215 candidates from the second list, total 389 candidates were found suitable and offered appointment (3.7) Out of these 389 candidates, only 50 candidates chose to join and remaining did not turn up. (3.8) Pursuant to an application filed by one Narendra Kumar under Right to Information Act, it was informed by the respondent No. 3 that out of 389 candidates, to whom appointments were offered, 335 candidates have not joined and resultantly 356 posts remained vacant. 4. Mr. Sushil Bishnoi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, argued that the respondents have proceeded completely contrary to advertisement and fallen into manifest error in exhausting the list by calling the above referred 643 candidates only i.e. 428 from the first list or purported select list and 215 from the second list or alleged reserve list for document verification. 5. Put in other words, his argument has been that the respondents have erred in branding and treating the first list of 428 candidates to be a list of selected candidates and another list of 215 candidates to be a list of reserved candidates. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Kailash Choudhary, associate of Mr. Manish Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General, relying upon Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Sanskrit Education State & Subordinate Service (School Branch) Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 2015'), submitted that the respondents have committed no error, inasmuch as Rule 26 clearly provides that the list of suitable candidates shall be published, and another list to the extent of 50% of the advertised vacancy shall be published, being the reserve list. 7. Rule 26 of the Rules of 2015 is reproduced hereinbelow: "26. Recommendations of the Commission of the Appointing Authority. 7. Rule 26 of the Rules of 2015 is reproduced hereinbelow: "26. Recommendations of the Commission of the Appointing Authority. - The Commission or Appointing Authority, as the case may be, shall prepare a list of candidates whom they consider suitable for appointment to the post concerned, arranged in the order of merit on the basis of marks obtained in the examination and forward the same to the Appointing Authority. Provided that the Commission or Appointing Authority may, to the extent of 50% of the advertised vacancies, keep names of suitable candidates on the reserve list and the names of such candidates may, on the requisition, be recommended in the order of merit to the Government within 6 months from the date on which the original list is forwarded by the Commission top the Government." 8. He emphasized that first list of 428 candidates is the list of suitable candidates, who fell in the merit, based on the criteria fixed in the selection process and the other list was the reserved list indicating names of candidates equal to 50% of the advertised vacancy. 9. According to Mr. Choudhary, the respondents have rightly issued such list, as Rule 26 envisages only two lists and after exhaustion of these lists, though the posts remained vacant, the respondents had no option but to stall the selection process. He added that the remaining vacant posts can be filled only by way of a fresh selection process. He was categoric in arguing that the reserved list had lived its life and it was valid only for a period of six months. 10. Having considered the submissions at the bar and sailed through the material available on record, this Court is of the firm view that the respondents have proceeded completely haywire and contrary to the conditions of the advertisement. They have impaired the entire selection process by slamming the doors after verifying the documents of 643 candidates - 428 from the first list and 215 from the second list. Their approach was an utter disregard to the terms of the advertisement and misreading of the statutory provisions, which is evident from the reasons set out hereinafter. 11. Wading through the eligibility criteria and other conditions of the advertisement, this Court is unable to swallow submissions of Mr. Their approach was an utter disregard to the terms of the advertisement and misreading of the statutory provisions, which is evident from the reasons set out hereinafter. 11. Wading through the eligibility criteria and other conditions of the advertisement, this Court is unable to swallow submissions of Mr. Choudhary that the process undertaken by the Respondent No. 3 is in sync with Rule 26 of the Rules of 2015. 12. Though the respondents have made a reference of the Rules of 2015 in the advertisement, but as a matter of fact they have given a complete go-by to the Rules. It is pertinent to note that Rule 25 of the Rules of 2015 provides for holding a written examination, whereas no written examination has been conducted. They have rather adopted a different yardstick/formula based on weighted aggregation of marks obtained in RTET/REET and marks secured in Graduation, which is alien to the Rules of 2015. Rule 26 can be resorted to if the selection process was in accordance with Rule 25 of the Rules of 2015. 13. Be that as it may, once the respondents have taken a detour from the Rules and published a scheme of selection, they are required to strictly adhere to the same. 14. The selection process in question has been catelogued in the advertisement; according to which, all the candidates, who have secured 60% marks in the REET Examination and passed the graduation (with percentage fixed by NCTE) are eligible for selection. In other words, eligibility is based on these twin conditions, subject of course to applicable relaxation. 15. Condition No. 7 reproduced above in no ambiguous terms require the respondents to publish a State-level merit list. 16. In considered opinion of this Court, what was required of the respondents was to publish a consolidated category wise merit list of all the eligible candidates and then invite them for documents verification, on the basis of their respective merit. 17. The action of the respondents in publishing the first list, vide order No. 36733 and 36734 dated 04.09.2018 of 428 candidates calling it to be a provisional select list, is illegal and contrary to law. 18. Similarly, they have erred in branding the second list of 215 candidates to be a reserve list. The advertisement in question does not envisage publication of reserve list at all. 19. 18. Similarly, they have erred in branding the second list of 215 candidates to be a reserve list. The advertisement in question does not envisage publication of reserve list at all. 19. According to the terms of the advertisement, more so because no written examination was held, the respondents were required to prepare a basket of eligible candidates keeping them in descending order of their proportionate aggregate marks to fill up 428 advertised vacancies. 20. A select list presupposes examination of credentials. A select list can be prepared only after examining the credentials and otherwise suitability. The respondent No. 3 failed to comprehend the subtle difference between merit list and select list. 21. No comprehensive merit list seems to have been prepared. The first list vide orders No. 36733 & 36734, issued on 04.09.2018 is nothing, but a category wise merit list of first 428 candidates. 22. It is to be noticed that after document verification, a list of suitable candidates or final select list of 389 came to be issued on 07.01.2019 and then the process was closed. 23. In case of non-joining, as has happened in the case at hands, the respondents should have called remaining candidates from the pool of eligible candidates or merit list. 24. As a result of the erroneous approach, the respondents could fill up only 50 posts and as many as 356 out of 428 advertised vacancies remained unfilled. Such stand of the respondents has not only taken away rights of many eligible and desperate unemployed youths, but has also led to putting the future of many students in lurch, who are looking towards the respondents for appointment of teachers in their schools. 25. Even if the argument of Mr. Choudhary is accepted and Rule 26 of the Rules of 2015 is held applicable, then also, what is required as per Rule 26 is that the Commission or Appointing Authority shall prepare a list of candidates whom they consider suitable for appointment to the posts concerned. 26. Mr. Choudhary's contention that 428 candidates were suitable for appointment cannot be countenanced. As a matter of fact, in the present factual backdrop, these 428 candidates (from the first list) are eligible candidates and not suitable in strict sense. Unless credentials of a candidate are examined and his documents are found in order, the respondents cannot say that these are the candidates whom they found suitable. As a matter of fact, in the present factual backdrop, these 428 candidates (from the first list) are eligible candidates and not suitable in strict sense. Unless credentials of a candidate are examined and his documents are found in order, the respondents cannot say that these are the candidates whom they found suitable. Examination of credentials and document verification itself is a stage of ascertaining suitability of a person. Publication of the lists vide order No. 36733 & 36734 on 04.09.2018 and branding it to be a provisional select list, was erroneous - it was only a category-wise merit list. 27. If the respondents were to follow Rule 26, it was incumbent upon them to publish the same on 07.01.2019 - the date when final select list was issued. 28. That apart, the stand of the respondents that reserve list has lived its life, as six months have passed, is totally fallacious. The so called 'waiting list' containing names of 215 candidates, issued vide order No. 36735 dated 04.09.2018, cannot be termed as 'reserve list'. A perusal of the list shows that it is ^^vLFkk;h izrh{kk^^ (waiting list) and all the persons mentioned in said list have admittedly been called for document verification. The select list of 389 candidates includes the names of candidates from this list also. As a matter of fact, no reserve list has ever been published/notified, if at all, it was to be issued. 29. As an upshot of above discussions, the writ petition succeeds. The respondents are directed to prepare a merit list of all the eligible candidates on the basis of selection criteria given in the advertisement (weighted aggregation of the marks obtained in RTET/REET examination and graduation); apply the reservation in accordance with law; call the candidates for documents verification in order of merit in their respective categories and after verification of credentials and examining their otherwise suitability, offer them appointment to the extent of seats available for each category. 30. For the purpose of carrying out above process, the following directions are issued: (i) The respondents shall prepare State level merit list, of course, subject to fulfilling eligibility criteria (If a candidate is entitled for relaxation, the same shall be given). (ii) After preparation of merit list, the respondents shall firstly invite candidate from merit No. 644 to 1000 operating the reservation and carry out their document verification. (ii) After preparation of merit list, the respondents shall firstly invite candidate from merit No. 644 to 1000 operating the reservation and carry out their document verification. (iii) List of suitable candidates/select list shall be published, while giving them at least 15 days' time for joining. (iv) In case, category wise posts are not filled after documents verification of candidates upto merit list No. 1000 and/or consequent to non-joining of persons selected, the seats remain vacant; the respondents shall publish a press note showing the number of vacant posts (category wise) and call candidates from amongst merit list Number 1000 to 1500 for document verification. (v) List of suitable candidates/select list shall be published, while giving them at least 15 days' time for joining. (vi) In case, seats in any category still remain vacant, they will keep on calling candidates in a group of 500 from merit list No. 1500 to 2000; 2000-2500 and so on and do the needful as directed in point No. (ii) and (iii) above. (vii) The process will continue until all the 428 seats are filled or the merit-list/category-wise merit list is exhausted, while applying the law relating to reservation and carry forward of vacancies. (viii) The respondents shall publish list of candidates called for document verification on their official website, while giving the scheduled date(s) and place of document verification. A press release to this effect will also be given in newspaper having circulation throughout the State. No order as to costs.