JUDGMENT : 1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking a direction to the respondents to fill up the advertised vacant posts of Senior Teacher from the candidates found provisionally selected by the select list and offer appointment to them pursuant to the advertisement dated 29.3.2018 and accord appointment to the petitioners on the post of Senior Teacher with all consequential benefits pursuant to the advertisement dated 29.3.2018. 2. Advertisement dated 29.3.2018 was issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission ('RPSC') for filling up the posts of Teachers under the Rajasthan Sanskrit Education State and Subordinate Service (School Branch) Rules, 2015 ('the Rules') for various subjects. Corrigendum dated 16.8.2019 was issued on account of according reservation to MBC. After examination was held, provisional list of candidates for eligibility checking was published to the extent of two times of vacancies in each subject. 3. After candidates were called for document verification, by way of counselling, main list of the selected candidates was issued for all categories except Ex-serviceman as the same was withheld under the orders of the Court. 4. Simultaneously, reserve list in terms of provisions of the Rules was also issued to the extent of 50% of vacancies advertised in each subject. Based on the main list and the recommendation made by the RPSC, the State issued appointment orders to the candidates. As all the candidates, did not join pursuant to the orders of appointment, the Department communicated the same to the RPSC and sought further recommendation from the reserve list. 5. The RPSC sent the merit list (pick-up against non joinder) to the Department, based on which, again orders of appointment were issued to the candidates from the reserve list. When even from the candidates appointed from the reserve list, again only few candidates joined, the Department again sought further recommendations from the reserve list. Even in the category of Ex-serviceman, whose result was declared, out of 11 candidates in English main list, who were offered appointment, one joined. 6. It is inter alia claimed that though the Department has sought names of the candidates from the reserve list, the RPSC for no apparent reason has failed to recommend the names of the candidates including the petitioners, from the select list despite the fact that large number of vacancies are available. 7. 6. It is inter alia claimed that though the Department has sought names of the candidates from the reserve list, the RPSC for no apparent reason has failed to recommend the names of the candidates including the petitioners, from the select list despite the fact that large number of vacancies are available. 7. Submissions have been made that action of the respondents in not sending the recommendation despite requisition from the Department, is not justified and, therefore, the relief as indicated has been claimed. 8. On notices being issued, the State filed its reply inter alia indicating that the Department has done its best and intend to fill up all the advertised posts and has communicated many times with the RPSC for filling up the advertised posts as per Rules and procedure established by law, however, for lack of recommendation, the said exercise could not be done, therefore, the petitions are liable to be dismissed. 9. On the part of RPSC, no reply was filed. However, on 15.12.2021, it was submitted that despite repeated communications with the Department of Personnel, permission to send the names, has not been received. 10. As the Department of Personnel was not party to the petition, Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned AAG was directed to put in appearance and complete his instructions in the matter. 11. Learned AAG has filed an affidavit on behalf of the Department of Personnel inter alia indicating that though the period for operating the reserve list is six months from the date, on which the original list if forwarded, even after excluding the period of lock-down as the said period has lapsed, no proceedings could be initiated in furtherance to the communication made by the RPSC and has placed on record a communication dated 27.10.2021 sent by the Department of Personnel to RPSC. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner made vehement submissions that when large number of advertised vacancies are available, the Department is seeking recommendation from the RPSC, however, RPSC has failed to recommend the names for no apparent reason and now the Department of Personnel has relying on the provisions of Rules, which provides for reserve list to expire, has denied permission, which is not justified. 13. 13. Submissions were made with reference to notification issued by the Department of Personnel on 14.10.2021 to indicate that specific timelines have been prescribed, which should have been followed by the Department and that by another Circular dated 13.1.2016, it has been clarified that the period of six months shall be considered from the last part of the recommendation made by the RPSC and as such, non-recommendation on part of the RPSC is not justified. 14. Learned AAG appearing for Director Sanskrit Education made submissions that this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Gajendra Upadhayay: D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.87/2021, decided on 27.1.2022 has laid down that once the period of six months have passed, the recruiting 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 and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 15. Learned AAG appearing for the Department of Personnel submitted that as the period as prescribed under the Rules has expired long back, the relief as claimed by the petitioners is not available. 16. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 17. The relevant facts in all the petitions, which pertain to different subjects may be summarized as under:- Writ Petition Subject Advertised posts Select-List Select List Dated Candidates did not join Pickup List Vacant Posts Main Reserved 12909/21 English 84 86 42 21.5.2020 60 39 24 13167/21 Sanskrit 191 188 93 22.5.2020 89 77 4 13249/21 Maths 135 123 66 28.5.2020 85 67 33 13801/21 Science 96 85 42 26.5.2020 61 48 20 18. The relevant provision dealing with the above aspect is Rule 26 of the Rules, which reads as under:- "26. Recommendations of the Commission or 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. Recommendations of the Commission or 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 to the Government." 19. In the present cases, the original recommendations were made on 21.5.2020, 22.5.2020, 28.5.2020 and on 26.5.2020, respectively. Even if the time as prescribed in the Rule after providing for six months of lock-down during the said period, is calculated, the period as per the proviso had expired on 20.5.2021, 21.5.2021, 27.5.2021 and on 25.5.2021, respectively. 20. The submissions made based on the Circular dated 13.1.2016 that period of six months has to be calculated from the last recommendation made i.e. after the RPSC recommended the names from the revised list is baseless. 21. 20. The submissions made based on the Circular dated 13.1.2016 that period of six months has to be calculated from the last recommendation made i.e. after the RPSC recommended the names from the revised list is baseless. 21. The Circular reads as under:- jkT; ljdkj ds /;ku esa yk;k x;k gS fd vk;ksx }kjk p;fur vH;fFkZ;ksa dh ewy lwph ,d gh ckj esa iw.kZ :i ls Hkstk tkuk O;kogkfjd :i ls laHko ugha gks ikrk gSA vH;fFkZ;ksa ds vkosnu i=ksa dh ik=rk tkap ,oa 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rkvksa] lR;kiu vkfn esa] vusd ekeyksa esa u pkgrs gq, Hkh] dkQh le; yx tkrk gSA dqN Ádj.kksa esa gksus okys foyac ds fy, leLr vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph dks jksds j[kuk Hkh mfpr ugha gksrk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa eq[; p;u lwph ¼vfHkLrkouk½ ,d ckj esa u Hksth tkdj ,dkf/kd VqdM+ksa esa Ásf"kr dh tkrh gSA ftlls ;g nqfo/kk mRiUu gks tkrh gS fd Åij n'kkZ, x, Áko/kkukuqlkj Árh{kk lwph dh ÁorZuh;rk ds 6 ekg dh vof/k dh x.kuk fdl vfHkLrkouk frfFk ls dh tkosA bl Øe esa vk;ksx ls ÁkIr ÁLrko ,oa jkT; ,oa ns'k dh mPp vnkyrksa ls ÁkIr fu.kZ;ksa dk vuq'khyu dj] jkT; ljdkj }kjk ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd ifji= fnukad 19-07-2001 esa ewy vfHkLrkouk frfFk ls 6 ekg dh x.kuk dk tks Áko/kku gS] ml vof/k dh x.kuk vk;ksx vFkok vU; ,tsalh }kjk Ásf"kr dh tkus okyh ¼ewy½ vfHkLrkouk lwph ds vafre Hkkx dks Ásf"kr djus dh fnukad ls dh tkosxhA 22. A perusal of the above would reveal that the last date of the recommendation referred to as in cases where original recommendation itself is made in parts and not the revised recommendation as claimed. 23. Further, it would be seen that the names of the petitioners have not appeared either in the main list or the reserve list and they have filed the petitions based on the fact that they were called for document verification, wherein, the respondents had called two times candidates of the number of vacancies. 24. The Division Bench in the case of Gajendra Upadhyay (supra) after taking into consideration various Circulars etc, wherein, the learned Single Judge had ordered for operating the select list till all the seats were filled up, came to the following conclusion:- "8. 24. The Division Bench in the case of Gajendra Upadhyay (supra) after taking into consideration various Circulars etc, wherein, the learned Single Judge had ordered for operating the select list till all the seats were filled up, came to the following conclusion:- "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. (emphasis supplied) 25. A perusal of the above judgment would reveal that the Division Bench has categorically held that the recruiting authority cannot be directed to invite candidates beyond the reserve list. 26. Admittedly, the names of the petitioners did not figure even in the reserve list and in that view of the matter, the issue raised in the present petitions being no more res integra, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 27. Consequently, the writ petitions are dismissed.