ORDER : 1. The instant Special Appeal (Writ) has been preferred by the appellant petitioner Archana Ruhela challenging the order dated 02.03.2022 passed by learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17851/2021 whereby, the writ petition preferred by the appellant petitioner has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel Shri Choudhary representing the appellant petitioner urged that as one Mamta Meena, who was selected, did not join and her candidature was cancelled and as the petitioner was at serial No.1 in the reserve list, the respondents should have offered the said post to the petitioner but the respondents have issued fresh advertisement for the post of Assistant Professor (Physiology) which is absolutely unjustified. 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel Shri Choudhary representing the appellant petitioner and, have gone through the impugned order dated 02.03.2022 and the record. 4. As per the pleadings of the writ petition, the advertisement had been issued on 16.07.2015. After conducting the recruitment process, the merit list/ reserve list has been issued on 09.02.2017. The candidature of Mamta Meena, whose post was claimed by the petitioner as being at No.1 in the reserve list, has been cancelled on 18.05.2020. It is not disputed that the reserve list was issued on 09.02.2017 and a period of more than three years has lapsed after the issuance thereof. It is settled that the validity of a waiting list/reserve list is only six months and as the said period has already passed, the recruitment authority cannot be directed to invite the candidates beyond the reserve list because the selection process has to be given a finality at some point of time. Under such circumstances, the respondent authorities have issued the fresh advertisement on 27.11.2021 which is absolutely justified and the petitioner cannot implore the recruiting authority to operate an expired waiting reserve list at this belated moment. 5. Controversy identical to the one at hand was examined by this Court in bunch of Special Appeal led by D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.87/2021 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Gajendra Upadhyay & Anr.), decided on 27.01.2022 wherein, its has been held: “6. First and foremost, we may observe that the finding recorded in the order dated 09.01.2020 passed in Mohd. Aslam’s case regarding the recruitment process being contrary to the Rules of 2015, is totally unfounded. vs. Gajendra Upadhyay & Anr.), decided on 27.01.2022 wherein, its has been held: “6. First and foremost, we may observe that the finding recorded in the order dated 09.01.2020 passed in Mohd. Aslam’s case regarding the recruitment process being contrary to the Rules of 2015, is totally unfounded. The learned Single Bench observed that since the respondents did not hold the written examination, Rule 26 could not be resorted to as the operation of the said Rule was only permissible if the selection process had been made as per Rule 25 of the Rules of 2015 which prescribe that the selection process must be undertaken on the basis of a written examination and as this procedure was not adhered to, Rule 26 would have no application. In this regard, learned counsel representing the appellants has drawn the Court’s attention to the notification dated 21.10.2016 issued by the State Government whereby, Rule 25 has been amended by adding the rider “if there is a provision of it in the rules” to the expression “written examination” and substituted the whole with the same. Similar substitution has been made in Rule 26 of the Rules of 2015. Acting in furtherance of the said amendment, the department issued an order dated 06.11.2017 wherein, it has been stipulated that the selection for the post of Teacher Grade III (Level-II) would be made on the basis of aggregate marks secured in RTET/REET and the marks secured in Graduation in the ratio of 70:30. Thus, there is no doubt in the mind of this Court that the selection process based on merit list prepared by proportionate aggregation of these marks, was compliant to the Rules of 2015. The finding recorded by the learned Single Bench that the list of 428 candidates issued by the respondents is not a final list and that the list of 215 candidates cannot also be termed to be a reserve list, is also without foundation. Suffice it to say that the observation made by the learned Single Bench at para 16 of the impugned order that the respondents were required to publish a consolidated category wise merit list of all eligible candidates and then invite them for document verification, is neither rational nor justified. Suffice it to say that the observation made by the learned Single Bench at para 16 of the impugned order that the respondents were required to publish a consolidated category wise merit list of all eligible candidates and then invite them for document verification, is neither rational nor justified. As per Clause 12(4) of the Recruitment Notification, the merit list would have to be prepared on the basis of information’s provided by the candidates and the final eligibility of the candidates would be dependent on document verification. Thus, the initial merit list had to be prepared on the basis of the available information which was provided by the candidates along with their application form. The first merit list was thus rightly termed to be a temporary select list prepared by accounting for reservation norms and the eligible candidates were called for document verification. This list was published on 04.09.2018 and the reserve list of around 50% of the main list too was prepared on the very same day wherein also, reservations have been provided. Thus, the observations made by the learned Single Bench that no reserve list has ever been published, is unsustainable in view of the fact that the reserve list was unquestionably published on 04.09.2018 albeit terming it to be a waiting list. The nomenclature is hardly relevant as in substance, it was a reserve list. The number of candidates in this list is around half of the candidates declared selected as per the main select list dated 04.09.2018. We are of the view that if the directions given by the learned Single Bench that first a consolidated categorywise merit list of all eligible candidates would have to be prepared and then, the candidates standing in merit would be invited for document verification on the basis of their respective merit position were to be complied, then application of vertical and horizontal reservation would become almost impossible. This process would result into complications in the selection process. 7. In our opinion, the controversy at hand is squarely covered by the following observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of RPSC vs. Jata Shankar Yadav (Supra) wherein, it was held as below: “The paras quoted above show how the lists have to be arranged. It is not in dispute that the revised list was arranged in order of merit by applying the rule of reservation. It is not in dispute that the revised list was arranged in order of merit by applying the rule of reservation. After arranging the main list, the reserve list was prepared out of the left out candidates. It was again for the different category which includes the open/SC/ST & OBC category. The reserve list was arranged from and amongst left out meritorious categories by arranging them in order of merit. The recommendation was made from and amongst the candidates of the category who failed to join the post. For illustration a candidate from OBC category failed to join the post, the reserve list of OBC has been used to make recommendation for appointment. Similarly, a candidate from open category has failed to join the post, the name of candidate from the reserve list of open category has to be recommended. In the said process, reserve list is not to be reshuffled. There is no provision and practice to reshuffle the reserve/shadow list. It is stated by the counsel for the RPSC that even the reserve list has been arranged strictly in order of merit and while arranging open category, the name of candidates of SC/ST & OBC category could also find place in order of merit and thereupon reserve list of SC/ST OBC category was prepared thus rule of reservation has been applied therein also. If that is the position then the non-appellants have no case. In any case, we are of the opinion that for filling up the vacant post, a direction cannot be given for reshuffling of the reserve list. It is more so when the prayer of the non-appellants was not to reshuffle the reserve list but to result as a whole by excluding names of those who did not join the post. The non-joining of the post never result in reshuffling of the result. The reserve list is prepared to make up the contingency like the post remained vacant due to non-joining. It is otherwise considered to be in public interest, as selection is not only time consuming but involves public exchequers. The purpose of reserve list is to avoid immediate selection for the post remained vacant on account of non-joining or for other reasons. The direction of the learned Single Judge is quoted hereunder for ready reference to show what would be the out come of the direction, if applied. The purpose of reserve list is to avoid immediate selection for the post remained vacant on account of non-joining or for other reasons. The direction of the learned Single Judge is quoted hereunder for ready reference to show what would be the out come of the direction, if applied. Whether due to the non-joining of the post by the candidates, reserve list is to be redrawn : “In the result, the respondents are directed to redraw the reserve list strictly in accordance with principle enunciated by the Apex Court of the land in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta (supra). Thereafter, names of the candidates from the reserve list, strictly on the basis of merit, shall be recommended for appointment and forwarded to the State Government to fill up the vacancies, become available owing to non-joining of the selected candidates in the merit select list. The respondents would do the needful to ensure compliance of this order as expeditious as possible; preferable, within two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is presented.” The direction quoted above shows nothing but to redraw the reserve list in accordance with the principles laid down in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors reported in 1995 (5) SCC 173 . The direction aforesaid has been given in ignorance of fact that non-joining of the post by few candidates cannot result in redraw of reserve list and otherwise if we go with the statement of learned Additional Advocate General, the reserve list was drawn after arranging name in order of merit of the left out candidates. It was again by applying the rule of reservation. The list for open category consists of the name not only of general but reserve caste and for that the reference of result, enclosed with the writ petition has been given. The fact aforesaid was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge thus on facts and principles of law, we are unable to endorse the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The examination agency has arranged the list based on the marks of the left out candidates after applying the rule of the reservation.” 8. The fact aforesaid was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge thus on facts and principles of law, we are unable to endorse the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The examination agency has arranged the list based on the marks of the left out candidates after applying the rule of the reservation.” 8. In wake of the discussion made herein above, we are of the view that the appellants have issued the main select list and the reserve list strictly in accordance with the rules of selection and that the recruitment process does not suffer from any illegality whatsoever. The directions given by the learned Single Bench in the impugned orders would completely jeopardize the process of selection and it would virtually become impossible to apply the mandatory reservations against the seats in the order of merit. Needless to say that once the period of six months has passed, the recruitment authority cannot be directed to invite the candidates beyond the reserve list because the selection process has to be given a finality at some point of time. The criterion of six months has been prescribed in the Circular dated 13.01.2016 issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan and the same is absolutely rational and cannot be made subject matter of judicial review. The candidates, who have not been selected, would have the opportunity of applying in the upcoming recruitment processes because the remaining vacant seats would be accounted for therein. 9. As an upshot of the above discussion, the impugned orders dated 09.01.2020, 11.11.2020 and 02.07.2020, cannot be sustained. Hence, the same are quashed and set aside.” 6. In wake of the discussion made herein above, we are of the firm view that the impugned order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Bench does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or perversity warranting interference in this intra court appeal. 7. Hence, the special appeal (writ) fails and is dismissed as being devoid of merit. Stay application also stands rejected.