JUDGMENT : 1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that present writ petition may kindly be allowed and :- a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, whereby Respondents be directed to issue appointment in favour of Petitioner on the post of Subject Matter Specialist (Home Science) in terms of Employment Advertisement dated 17.4.2017, with all consequential benefits and reliefs. b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, whereby Respondents be directed to operate the wait list/reserve list and give appointment on the basis of same with all consequential benefits and reliefs. In alternative, the period of six month for operating the wait list/reserve list may be extended. c) Any other appropriate order or direction which the Hon’ble Court may deem just, proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. d) Cost of the Writ Petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.4.2017, the petitioner participated in the process for selection for appointment on the post of Subject Matter Specialist (Home Science). Counsel submits that only one post was advertised for unreserved female candidate and one Ms. Ragini Ranawat was selected on the aforesaid post and appointment letter was offered to her on 30.06.2018. Counsel submits that said Ms. Ragini Ranawat joined elsewhere and the post in question was lying vacant and the petitioner was at Merit No.1 in the reserve/waiting list. The respondents have not operated the same for the reasons best known to them. Counsel submits that when the reserve list was not operated, she approached this Court by way of filing of the instant petition. Counsel submits that while issuing notices to the respondents on 12.12.2018, this Court passed this interim order that “The waiting list for the post of Subject Matter Specialist (Home Science) made pursuant to the selection following the advertisement dated 17.4.2017 issued by the Jobner University shall remain operative”. Counsel submits that looking to the letter dated 19.07.2018 issued by His Excellency, the Governor, the selection process was kept in abeyance. Counsel submits that looking to the letter dated 19.07.2018 issued by His Excellency, the Governor, the selection process was kept in abeyance. Subsequently, the Ministry of Human Resources Development, (for short, ‘MHRD’) Department of Higher Education, Government of India issued a letter on 07.03.2019 directing the Secretary, University Grants Commission, New Delhi, for issuing necessary directions to all the universities to start the recruitment process immediately. Counsel submits that in consonance with the aforesaid letter, the University Grants Commission, New Delhi (for short, ‘UGC’) issued a letter on 07.03.2019 directing all the universities to start the recruitment process immediately. Counsel further submits that vide order dated 09.07.2021 the Department of Higher Education, Government of Rajasthan issued guidelines indicating therein that the advertisement in which no activity relating to final selection i.e. examination or interview etc. has not been completed and the recruitment process is still pending at the stage of advertisement and inviting the application, in such cases, the new rule notified on 07.03.2019 will be applied and the vacancies to be brought in the new roster accordingly. Counsel submits that in the instant case, aforesaid situation was not existing as the selection process was completed prior to issuance of the new rule which is notified on 07.03.2019. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, there is no hurdle with the respondents to operate the waiting list and offer appointment to the petitioner. Counsel submits that the respondents have operated the reserve/waiting list on 19.07.2018 with regard to identical post and granted appointment to the similarly situated persons on the post of Assistant Professor. Counsel submits that the respondents cannot make any discrimination with the petitioner at this stage. Counsel submits that the petitioner has approached this Court within time before expiry of the date of reserve/waiting list. Counsel submits that when the instructions issued by the MHRD and the UGC were not followed, the petitioner submitted an application for compliance of the aforesaid letter dated 07.03.2019 on 17.08.2022, this Court directed the respondents to make compliance of the letter dated 07.03.2019. It was also observed by this Court that if the compliance of the aforesaid letter is not done the Registrar of the University shall remain present before this Court. It was also observed by this Court that if the compliance of the aforesaid letter is not done the Registrar of the University shall remain present before this Court. Counsel submits that when the compliance of the aforesaid letter was not done, an application was submitted by the University for extension of time for compliance of the order passed by this Court. Hence the respondents be directed to make compliance of the order. In support of his contentions, counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments:- (i) Ghanshyam Singh Rathore Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Another : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2031/1997 (ii) Harish Kumar Khileri v/s State of Rajasthan & Anr. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13516/2012 (iii) Jammu and Kashmir Vs. Satpal reported in 2013(11) SCC 737 . 3. Counsel submits that in view of the submissions made hereinabove, interference of this Court is warranted and the respondents be directed to operate the reserve merit list and grant appointment to the petitioner with all consequential benefits. 4. Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the reserve/waiting list could not be operated on account of a letter written by His Excellency, the Governor on 19.07.2018. Counsel submits that the reserve list category candidate has no vested right to claim appointment as a matter of right. Counsel submits that reserve/ waiting list cannot be operated after expiry of nine months. Counsel submits that as per the Section 8(iii) of Sri Karan Narendra Agriculture University, Jobner Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act of 2013’) validity of reserve merit list is nine months from the date of interview and the same has expired. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as sought by her in the instant petition. In support of his contentions, counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments:- (i) K. Jayamohan Vs. State of Kerala and Ors. reported in AIR 1997 SC 2619 (ii) State of M.P. and Ors. Vs. Sanjay Kumar Kathak and Ors. reported in 2007 (12) SCALE 72 (iii) State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Jagdish Chopra reported in (2007) 8 SCC 161 5. Counsel submits that in view of the submissions made hereinabove, interference of this Court is not warranted. 6. reported in AIR 1997 SC 2619 (ii) State of M.P. and Ors. Vs. Sanjay Kumar Kathak and Ors. reported in 2007 (12) SCALE 72 (iii) State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Jagdish Chopra reported in (2007) 8 SCC 161 5. Counsel submits that in view of the submissions made hereinabove, interference of this Court is not warranted. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the bar and perused the material available on the record. 7. The respondent University advertised one post of Subject Matter Specialist (Home Science) vide Advertisement dated 17.04.2017. Several candidates like the petitioner participated in the selection process and one Ragini Ranawat was selected and offered appointment vide order dated 30.06.2018 but she did not join the said post. A panel was prepared by the Selection Committee for the post as per Section 8 of the Act of 2013. Section 8 (iii) lays down that the panel prepared by the Selection Committee for post should be used only as waiting list for making appointment to any subsequent vacancies in cadre or in any other cadre, and will remain valid for a total period of 9 months from the date of interview. 8. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner was called for interview on 17.05.2018 for the aforesaid post. After completion of the process a panel was prepared by the Selection Committee. On account of non-joining of the selected candidate Ragini Ranawat, the post remain vacant and unfilled and as per Clause 8(iii) of the Act, the respondents were supposed to operate the waiting list for making appointment. But in the meantime, His Excellency the Governor stayed the selection process vide letter dated 19.07.2018 in the light of the circular dated 19.07.2018 issued by the UGC with reference to implementation of reservation policy of the Government of India. Subsequently, the Government promulgated “The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation of Teachers Cadre) Ordinance 2019” and the same was published in the Official Gazette on 07.03.2019. Hence, MHRD directed the UGC to issue directions to the Universities to start recruitment process immediately. In consonance with the above letter, the UGC directed all the Universities to start the recruitment process immediately vide letter dated 07.03.2019. 9. Hence, MHRD directed the UGC to issue directions to the Universities to start recruitment process immediately. In consonance with the above letter, the UGC directed all the Universities to start the recruitment process immediately vide letter dated 07.03.2019. 9. Thereafter the Department of Higher Education, Government of Rajasthan, issued certain instructions and guidelines on 09.07.2021 for implementation of the new reservation and maintenance of roster considering University as one unit for the purpose of direct recruitment on the post of Teacher and equivalent cadre and it was clarified in Clause (C) (2) as under: “Clause (C) 2.: All the advertisement for direct recruitment issued on 07.03.2019 or thereafter, shall be regulated by the reservation policy, considering University as one Unit. All the advertisement which were issued before 07.03.2019 and in which examinations have been conducted successfully or results have been declared or even a single appointment has been made, then the recruitment under such advertisement will be governed by the then reservation rules, which existed at the time of advertisement prior to 07.03.2019. Those advertisements in which no activity related to final selection i.e. examination or interview etc. has been completed and the recruitment process is still pending at the level of advertisement and inviting of application, in such cases the new rule notified on 07.03.2019 will apply and the vacancies have to be plotted in the new roster accordingly.” 10. Perusal of Clause (C) (2) clearly indicates that the advertisement was issued prior to 07.03.2019 and examination was conducted successfully and the result was declared then the recruitment under such advertisement would be governed by the then old Rules, which were existing at the time of advertisement prior to 07.03.2019. Meaning thereby the new reservation policy was made applicable with prospective effect i.e. 07.03.2019 and the Universities were left free to proceed further with the recruitment process where result was declared. So under these circumstances the respondents were supposed to proceed further but they were sitting over the post which became vacant on account of non-joining of the selected candidate Ragini Ranawat. 11. When the reserve/waiting list was not operated by the respondents the petitioner approached this Court prior to expiry of the same and this Court passed an interim order on 12.12.2018 that the waiting list issued by the Jobner University would remain operational. Hence, the said waiting list is still operative. 11. When the reserve/waiting list was not operated by the respondents the petitioner approached this Court prior to expiry of the same and this Court passed an interim order on 12.12.2018 that the waiting list issued by the Jobner University would remain operational. Hence, the said waiting list is still operative. Thereafter on 16.08.2022, the respondents sought four weeks time for making compliance of the letter dated 07.03.2019 issued by UGC in view of the above interim order dated 12.12.2018 passed by this Court. It is worthy to note here that the respondents did not comply with the order dated 16.08.2022 within the prescribed period hence, on 09.09.2022 an Interlocutory Application No.2/2022 was submitted by them for compliance of the aforesaid order but till date the above order has not been complied with. 12. Hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be blamed if the respondents have not proceed further with the process as per the provision contained under Section 8(iii) of the Act of 2013. Since the petitioner has approached this Court on 04.12.2018 i.e. before expiry of waiting list and on 12.12.2018 by way of passing an interim order this Court has continued the operation of the said reserve list and the said order is still in currency. 13. In view of the factual aspects of the matter, the respondents University was supposed to act in accordance with the instructions issued by UGC vide its letter dated 07.03.2019 and complete the recruitment process accordingly. Since the post of Subject Matter Specialist (Home Science) is still lying vacant on account of non- joining of the selected candidate, the respondents are supposed to fill the same by operating the reserve merit list. 14. Resultantly, this petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondent Universities to operate the reserve waiting list in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 8(iii) of the Act of 2013 and consider the case of the petitioner for her appointment on the advertised post if she is found in merit and otherwise eligible, with all consequential benefits. 15. Needless to observe that the directions issued by this Court would be complied by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 16. Stay application and all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of.