JUDGMENT : 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Soaham Joshi, learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent State. 2. By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed to direct the respondents authority to operate the waiting list against the post which has been vacant due to resignation of selected candidates and thereby further direct them to consider the case of the petitioners by giving relaxation in time. The petitioners have further prayed for holding that provision of 'one year in case of resignation' in the resolutions dated 10.08.2016 and 27.07.2018 is contrary to the purpose and intention behind the said resolution itself. 3. Facts in brief would indicate that on 17.10.2017, an advertisement no. 144/2017-18 came to be published for 35 posts of Jamadar, Class-III. The petitioners submitted their applications on the website. On 20.05.2018, preliminary examinations were conducted. On 25.10.2018, physical test was conducted. Written examinations were held on 12.07.2019 and document verification was done on 27.07.2019. 3.1 The Gujarat Subordinate Services Selection Board published the results on 31.08.2019. 13 candidates were in the waiting list. According to the Government Resolution dated 10.08.2016 and 27.07.2018, the select list was so published on 31.08.2019. The petitioner no. 1 was at Sr. No. 2, the petitioner no. 2 was at Sr. No. 6 and the petitioner no. 3 was at Sr. No. 11 in the waiting list. On 19.09.2019, the recommendation was sent to the State for appointment. The candidates who were selected were appointed in February 2020. In March 2021 since four candidates did not report, the waiting list was operated. 3.2 It is the case of the petitioners that by the same advertisement, higher posts of P.I were advertised and five candidates from the select list at Sr Nos. 2, 3, 13, 17 and 28 were selected for the higher post of P.I for which results were declared in March 2021. These five candidates resigned on 21.08.2021 on they being selected for appointment to the higher post. 4. Mr. Gautam Joshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. 2, 3, 13, 17 and 28 were selected for the higher post of P.I for which results were declared in March 2021. These five candidates resigned on 21.08.2021 on they being selected for appointment to the higher post. 4. Mr. Gautam Joshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. S.M. Kikani, learned advocate for the petitioners would submit that since the Government Resolutions dated 10.08.2016 and 27.07.2018 provide that the life of the waiting list would be two years, the arising of vacancies as a result of resignation of five candidates before the tenure of the waiting list which ended on 31.08.2021, the petitioners ought to have been appointed on the basis of operation of the waiting list. However, since the petitioners were not so appointed they made representations to the authorities requesting them to appoint the petitioners, especially in light of the pandemic in the interregnum, which ought to also extend the life of the list. No such appointments were given by operating the waiting list. 4.1 Reiterating the submissions, Mr. Gautam Joshi, learned Senior Advocate would submit that the stand of the respondents is that they are not operating the waiting list on the ground that since the five candidates had resigned after a period of one year from their date of joining, the waiting list cannot be operated inasmuch as there is a clear stipulation in the resolutions that on arising of vacancies, the waiting list shall operate for a period of two years or before the next recruitment whichever is earlier. He would submit that admittedly the present vacancies had occurred within two years and since there was no new advertisement, a right accrued to the petitioners to seek appointment on the basis of their placement in the waiting list. 5. Mr. Soaham Joshi, learned AGP would submit that for the posts which were advertised in the year 2017, the list was prepared on 31.08.2019. The five candidates had resigned on 21.08.2021 and in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 27.10.2018, though the time of operating the waiting list is two years, there is a clear stipulation in the resolution that in case of resignations within one year, the vacancies arising out of such resignation have to be filled in within one year. The five candidates had resigned on 21.08.2021 and in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 27.10.2018, though the time of operating the waiting list is two years, there is a clear stipulation in the resolution that in case of resignations within one year, the vacancies arising out of such resignation have to be filled in within one year. Since the resignations were beyond the period of one year inasmuch as the candidates resigned around one year and seven months after joining the service, the petitioners have no right for operating the waiting list. 6. It is in light of these facts, the dates need to be considered. Admittedly, pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.10.2017, a select list for the post in question i.e. Jamadar was prepared on 31.08.2019. 35 candidates were put on the merit list and 13 candidates were put on the wait list. The resolution annexed to the petition, first in point of time, dated 10.08.2016 would indicate that the wait list shall operate for a period of two years or until the next advertisement whichever is earlier. Reliance is placed on sub-clause 4 of the resolution dated 10.08.2016 which indicates that if the recommended candidates resign within one year from the date of their selection, it is only then that the candidates on the wait list can be recommended for appointment. The resolution dated 21.07.2018 also is pressed into service on the ground that if there is a resignation within a year of selection, it is only then that the waitlisted candidates deserve to be appointed. The stand of the State is that since the resignation came after a period of one year and seven months on 21.08.2021 and not within the year of their selection, the petitioners have no right to claim appointment. 6.1 This interpretation of the resolution, in the opinion of the court, is directly contrary to the intent of the resolutions so passed by the State on 10.08.2016 and 27.07.2018. The master resolution which these two resolutions refer to is that of 24.12.2008 which clearly indicates that the currency of the waiting list is two years or the next advertisement, whichever is earlier. Admittedly on hand, the wait list and select list were prepared on 31.08.2019. The currency, therefore, in absence of a new advertisement was upto 31.08.2021. The master resolution which these two resolutions refer to is that of 24.12.2008 which clearly indicates that the currency of the waiting list is two years or the next advertisement, whichever is earlier. Admittedly on hand, the wait list and select list were prepared on 31.08.2019. The currency, therefore, in absence of a new advertisement was upto 31.08.2021. Merely because the candidates who were selected and appointed resigned beyond a period of one year on 21.08.2021 does not truncate the currency of the waiting list which otherwise had a life of two years i.e. upto 31.08.2021. Even based on the additional affidavit/rejoinder filed, it is evident that the waiting list was operated by appointing two candidates therefrom on 26.05.2022. 7. Even one has to take into consideration the decision of this court in the case of Nirav Dipakchandra Rana and Others vs. State of Gujarat dated 22.07.2019 rendered in Special Civil Application No. 12056 of 2018 with Special Civil Application No. 12248 of 2018. There the petition was contested on the ground that the list expired on 01.08.2018 and the petition was filed on 31.07.2018 which had become infructuous. Taking into consideration the recruitment results which were published on 31.08.2018 and that the vacancies had become available on 12.07.2017, the court opined that if the vacancies arose within a span of two years, the right would accrue to such wait listed candidates to seek appointment, since the wait list was live as the time limit of two years as contemplated in the circular had not expired. The relevant paras of the decision Nirav Dipakchandra Rana (supra) need to be reproduced: "3. The petitioners have been aspiring appointment to the post having participated in the process pursuant to Advertisement No.74/2013-14 published by respondent No.3 - GPSC which was for the post of Lecturer, Electronics & Communications Engineering, Class-II. Total 76 posts were advertised, out of which 06 meant for Scheduled Caste Category, 16 for Scheduled Tribe Category and 32 posts were earmarked for Socially and Educationally Backward Class Category. The petitioners succeeded in the preliminary examination held by the GPSC on 13th July, 2014. After the preliminary examination, a list of the candidates whose applications were verified, came to be published on 13th December, 2014. Names of the petitioners figured therein. The petitioners succeeded in the preliminary examination held by the GPSC on 13th July, 2014. After the preliminary examination, a list of the candidates whose applications were verified, came to be published on 13th December, 2014. Names of the petitioners figured therein. The petitioners submitted documents for verification, interview call letters were received by the petitioners and the petitioners remained present for interview which took place between 07th September, 2015 and 11th September, 2015. 3.1 The result of the interview was declared on 01st August, 2016 by the GPSC. Names of the petitioners stood included in the waiting list of their respective category. The petitioners were intimated by communication dated 04th October, 2016 accordingly, wherein it was also stated that the wait list would remain in existence for two years from 11th August, 2016 or until the declaration of result of the next advertisement for the same post, whichever occurs earlier. 3.2 It was stated by the petitioners that thereafter selected candidates were placed under the Commissioner of Technical Education for the purpose of appointment and the appointment orders came to be issued in favour of the selected candidates by the Commissioner of Technical Education on 27th October, 2016. 3.3 As per the undisputed case of the petitioners, after the appointment of selected candidates, the respondent authorities operated the wait list for five candidates, of which two candidates each from S.T. Category and S.E.B.C. Category whereas one candidate from General Category were recommended on 08th May, 2017 by the GPSC to the State Government for appointment. It was stated that three more candidates from S.E.B.C. and General Category were thereafter given appointment by the State Government. It was further stated by the petitioners that as per their information, as many as 11 more seats fell vacant because of the fact that the candidates joined another post of Assistant Professor. 3.4 Thus, what is stated and pleaded by the petitioners is that several selectees who were offered appointment for the Lecturer, Electronics & Communications Engineering, came to be subsequently selected on the post of Assistant Professor pursuant to another advertisement and they joined the service there. It was stated that post of Lecturer, Electronics & Communications Engineering, thus fell vacant because of the said reason of candidates leaving the post to join another post. It was stated that post of Lecturer, Electronics & Communications Engineering, thus fell vacant because of the said reason of candidates leaving the post to join another post. The petitioners produced on record the relevant order of one of the candidates who left the post of Lecturer, Electronics & Communications Engineering. 3.5 The General Administrative Department of the State Government has issued Circular dated 24th December, 2008 in respect of the validity period and operation of wait list for direct recruitment undertaken by the Gujarat Public Service Commission, which inter alia provides that the wait list shall remain in operation in case of competitive examination as well as in case of direct recruitment, for two years or until the date previous to the declaration of result of the subsequently held examination, whichever is earlier. Resolution dated 27th July, 2018 provides for the same terms for operation of the wait list. 3.6 It is the case of the petitioners that since the vacancies became available, the wait list in which they were placed was required to be operated to be given appointment to them. The petitioners relied on Circular dated 24th December, 2008 and the aforementioned Resolution which provided for guideline for operating the wait list as well as Resolution dated 27th July, 2018 also issued in the subject. 4. The petition was contested by filing affidavit-in-reply by respondent No.2. Mentioned in the affidavit-in-reply the Resolution dated 27th July, 2018 of the State Government which lay down the policy pertaining to operation of the wait list to provide that the wait list would operate only upto two years from the date of the Resolution declared. It was stated that the result was declared in respect of the recruitment instant in question on 01st August, 2016 and the two years' period would be expired on 01st August, 2018. Learned Assistant Government Pleader relying on the contents of the affidavit-in reply submitted that since the period of wait list expired on 01st August, 2018 and the petition was preferred on 31st July, 2018, it had become infructuous. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader relying on the contents of the affidavit-in reply submitted that since the period of wait list expired on 01st August, 2018 and the petition was preferred on 31st July, 2018, it had become infructuous. 5. While the contention of the respondents about petitions becoming infructuous on the ground that two years period expired on 01st August, 2018 for operation of the wait list and the petition was preferred on 31st July, 2018, is stated to be rejected as wholly misconceived, in the affidavit-in-reply, following was stated on oath to admit the position that the vacancies were available and that due to arising of vacancies subsequently, the wait list was operated. ".... it may relevant to take note that for the faculty in question that is Electronics and Communication Engineering 76 posts were requisitioned pursuant to which from the selected list, appointment orders were issued to all 73 candidates as 3 candidates at Sr no.30, 31 and 65 of the list had not approached to the office of Directorate of Technical Education for their document verification. It is further stated that thereafter 2 candidates belonging to ST category mentioned at Sr no.60 and 76 of the list did not joined the relevant colleges for their appointment, hence overall 5 posts were vacant and hence appointment orders were issued to relevant candidates from waiting list vide office orders dated 08.5.2017 and 21.06.2017." 5.1 In the process of the instant recruitment, result was declared on 01st August, 2016. It was stated by the authorities in the communication sent to the petitioners that wait list would remain in operation for two years from 11th August, 2016, therefore the date of expiry of the wait list would be 11th August, 2018. Now, it could not be disputed that the authorities operated the wait list on 21st June, 2017 by appointing candidates therefrom in view of the vacancies becoming available. Thereafter vacancies became available on 12th July, 2017, when 11 candidates who received appointment orders, resigned during their probation period from the post in question, that of Lecturer, Electronics & Communications Engineering, Class-II, to join the post of Assistant Professor for which they were selected. 5.2 These above stated vacancies arose within span of two years calculated from 01st August, 2016/11th August, 2016. 5.2 These above stated vacancies arose within span of two years calculated from 01st August, 2016/11th August, 2016. The petitioners have approached within reasonable time by filing this petition seeking a plea that their right to be appointed had accrued since the wait list was live as the time limit of two years as contemplated in the Circular and the Resolution had not expired. 5.3 A submission was sought to be raised by the respondents for not operating the wait list, that All India Council for Technical Education constituted under the AICTE Act, 1987 has laid down the norms for student-faculty ratio which has been changed from 1:20 to 1:25, which has the result of curtailing the requirement of Lecturer and that the Lecturers have become surplus due to the change of ratio. However, there is no substance in this submission since the ratio was proposed to be implemented from Academic Year 2018-19 whereas the recruitment in question was for the earlier year. In the rejoinder affidavit it was uncontrovertedly pointed out by the petitioners that the AICTE itself had clarified that restriction on the downsizing of the faculties at the cost of excellence in technical education would not be permitted. In any view, the said factor could not be germane for operating the wait list prepared pursuant to the recruitment process taken out earlier. 6. When the vacant posts of Lecturer, Electronics & Communications Engineering, Class-II, arose within two years from the date of result of the recruitment process as per the respondents' own policy as contemplated under Circular dated 24th December, 2008 read with Resolution dated 27th July, 2018, the wait list was required to be operated. Therefore, when the wait list was live and could be operated, the petitioners, whose names figured in the wait list, are entitled to benefit to be considered for appointment to the post. The stand of the authorities in refusing to operate the wait list could not be countenanced as it stands in breach of tenets of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 7. As a result of the above discussion, both the petitions deserve to be allowed. The stand of the authorities in refusing to operate the wait list could not be countenanced as it stands in breach of tenets of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 7. As a result of the above discussion, both the petitions deserve to be allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to operate the wait list published by the respondent - Gujarat Public Service Commission on 01st August, 2016 for the post of Lecturer, Electronics & Communications Engineering, Class-II in the Government Polytechnic, and consider the case of the petitioners whose names figure in the wait list for appointment to the vacant available posts, in order of merit position, within 10 days from the date of service of this order upon the respondents. The petitions stand allowed in the aforesaid terms. Direct service is permitted." 8. As a result of the discussion hereinabove, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to operate the wait list for the posts in question which had fallen vacant due to the resignation of the selected candidates and the respondents are further directed to consider the case of the petitioners for being appointed to the post of Jamadar, Class-III in pursuance of the advertisement in question, ignoring the provisions and the disqualification based on which their cases have been rejected. Rule is made absolute. No costs.