ORDER : 1. The present petition is filed with the following prayer:- “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition; and further be pleased to direct the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Junior Accountant under TSP category from the waiting list/reserved list dated 6.1.2014 taking the same to be live as late as on 22.4.2014 when the petitioner made his first representation.” 2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the present case are as follows:- (i) That the respondents vide advertisement dated 24.06.2013 invited applications for appointment on various posts; whereby, 130 posts were for ‘Junior Accountant’. (ii) That vide amended advertisement (Annexure R/1), 5 out of the said 130 posts were earmarked for candidates belonging to the TSP General Area (Tribal Sub-Plan Area). (iii) That an appointment order was issued to the selected candidates on 26.09.2013. However, due to an error on part of the respondents, several candidates were selected against the seats reserved for candidates belonging to the TSP Area, despite not belonging to the same. Hence, vide order dated 27.09.2013, the candidature of the ineligible candidates was cancelled. (iv) In consequence of the order dated 27.09.2013 and in lieu of the vacant positions, 4 additional candidates were offered appointment vide order dated 30.09.2013 (Annexure R/3). (v) Thereafter, on 06.01.2014, a reserve list/waiting list of candidates belonging to the TSP General area was issued wherein the petitioner was placed at serial No. 2. However, upon verification of documents, it was observed that the candidate placed at serial No.1, Mr. Yuvraj Singh Shekhawat, was erroneously placed at the said position, despite not belonging to the TSP area. As a result, vide order dated 09.05.2014, the appointment order of the said ineligible candidate was cancelled and he was declared ineligible. (vi) In this background, the petitioner submitted his representation(s) to the respondents for consideration of his candidature in lieu of the fact that the reserved list/waiting list was issued with the inclusion of an ineligible candidate at serial No.1, as a result of which, the petitioner was placed at serial No.2. (vi) In this background, the petitioner submitted his representation(s) to the respondents for consideration of his candidature in lieu of the fact that the reserved list/waiting list was issued with the inclusion of an ineligible candidate at serial No.1, as a result of which, the petitioner was placed at serial No.2. (vii) Aggrieved by inaction on part of the respondents, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in SBCWP No. 9259/2014, whereby vide order dated 10.09.2014, the petition was disposed of with a direction to approach the respondents by way of a representation. (viii) In compliance of the said order, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents for the consideration of his candidature (Annexure-05). However, the same was kept pending by the respondents. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 17.10.2014, the representation submitted by the petitioner was disposed of awaiting financial sanction from the State Government. (ix) Aggrieved by the impugned actions of the respondents in not giving appointment to the petitioner qua the reserved list, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner has categorically submitted that the respondents cannot be permitted premium for their own wrongdoing(s) in repeatedly considering the candidature of ineligible candidates, without conducting any timely document verification, against the positions reserved for eligible candidates belonging to the TSP Area. Moreover, the respondents were duty bound to only consider the candidature of eligible applicants and the inclusion of ineligible candidates cannot be permitted to defeat the rights of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned actions of the respondents are against the principles of reasonableness and fair play as the respondents were obligated to recast the reserved list/waiting list on account of the fact that the same was vitiated due to the inclusion of ineligible candidates. It is a settled position of law that one cannot take advantage of their own wrongdoings and the respondents due to their own omission and negligence, cannot benefit from their mistake and deny appointment to the petitioner. 4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the dictum of the judgments in (2019) 12 SCC 798 titled as Dinesh Kumar Kashyap & Ors. vs. South East Central Railways & Ors., (2013) 12 SCC 171 titled as Manoj Manu & Anr. 4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the dictum of the judgments in (2019) 12 SCC 798 titled as Dinesh Kumar Kashyap & Ors. vs. South East Central Railways & Ors., (2013) 12 SCC 171 titled as Manoj Manu & Anr. vs. Union of India and (2015) 12 SCT 694 titled as Ankit Kumar Aggarwal vs. Airport Authority of India. Relying upon the said judgments, it was argued that the employer, must provide justifiable and nonarbitrary reasons for not filling up vacant posts. Moreover, when the employer is the State, it is bound to act in accordance with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It cannot act arbitrarily in deciding not to fill up the vacant posts without providing any justifiable reasons, especially when the said posts are earmarked for the benefit of a certain section of the society. Therefore, by not duly conducting the document verification of the incumbent candidates before the issuance of the merit list or appointment orders, the respondents cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own omissions and not give appointment to the petitioner. Accordingly, it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned actions of the respondents are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and it is solely on account of their malafide and wrong assessment that the reservations for the TSP Area have become redundant. Hence, in light of the submissions made herein-above, the respondents be directed to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of ‘Junior Accountant’ under the TSP General category. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the waiting list/reserve list dated 06.01.2014 has lapsed and is not in existence as on date. It was further submitted that vide order 05.03.2014, the Principle Secretary (Finance), Government of Rajasthan had directed the respondents not to appoint any candidate from the waiting list on the said post in question. Therefore, the respondent-department decided to keep the matter pending for selection against the reserved list under the TSP General category, subject to receiving directions/guidelines from the Finance Department. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner’s representation dated 22.09.2014 has not been dismissed or cancelled; rather, it has been kept pending subject to directions and approval from the Finance Department. Therefore, the respondent-department decided to keep the matter pending for selection against the reserved list under the TSP General category, subject to receiving directions/guidelines from the Finance Department. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner’s representation dated 22.09.2014 has not been dismissed or cancelled; rather, it has been kept pending subject to directions and approval from the Finance Department. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the dictum of the Apex Court in (2016) 6 SCC 532 titled as Kulwinder Pal Singh vs. State of Punjab and the judgment passed by this Hon’ble High Court in SBCWP No. 12948/2017 titled as Vijay Kumar vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. Relying upon the said judgments, it was argued that the grant of benefit to some persons illegally or by mistake does not confer the right upon the petitioner to claim equality i.e. illegality cannot be perpetuated. 6. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the sides, scanned the record of the case and perused the judgments cited at Bar. 7. In the case at hand, it is observed that vide order dated 10.09.2014 (Annexure-4) in SBCWP No. 9259/2014, this Court had given categoric directions to the respondents for considering the representation filed by the petitioner within a period of six weeks and to address his grievance by considering his candidature for appointment on the post of Junior Accountant. Thereafter, in compliance of the said order, the respondents vide impugned order dated 17.10.2014, kept the petitioner’s candidature in abeyance and held that further proceedings qua the petitioner’s representation shall only be initiated after getting due approval from the Finance Department of the State Government with regard to selection and appointment of candidates from the reserve list. In this regard, it is noted that the said representation dated 22.09.2014 is still pending as on date, in spite of a prolonged lapse of 8 years. 8. In the background of the present case, it is further observed that a total of 5 out of 130 posts were earmarked for candidates belonging to the TSP General Category. Furthermore, when the reserved list was prepared, the petitioner was placed at serial No.2, whereas, namely Mr. Yuvraj Singh Shekhawat, was placed at serial No.1 despite being ineligible qua the availed reservation. Furthermore, when the reserved list was prepared, the petitioner was placed at serial No.2, whereas, namely Mr. Yuvraj Singh Shekhawat, was placed at serial No.1 despite being ineligible qua the availed reservation. Thereafter, when one post under the TSP General Category became vacant, appointment offer was given to Mr. Yuvraj Singh Shekhawat, being at serial No.1 in the waiting list. However, since he did not belong to the TSP area, his appointment letter was cancelled by the respondents. Accordingly, pursuant to the said cancellation, the petitioner filed representations dated 20.02.2014 and 22.04.2014 to the respondents, wherein it was stated that as the petitioner rightly belonged to the concerned TSP Area, his name ought to have been placed at serial No.1, ahead of Mr. Yuvraj Singh Shekhawat and accordingly, he should have been given appointment on the said post. Therefore, considering the said timeline of events, it is analyzed that had the respondents not committed the mistake of wrongly offering appointment letter to an ineligible candidate under the TSP Category, then the petitioner’s candidature would have been placed at serial No.1 in the reserve/waiting list and accordingly, he would have been duly granted appointment on the said post timely. Therefore, it was only on account of a mistake on part of the respondents that the petitioner’s rights were prejudiced and his appointment was impacted adversely. However, it is pertinent to note that it is not at this stage for this Court to decide whether the said mistake on part of the respondents was bonafide or otherwise; however, regardless of the same, the respondents cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own wrongs and defeat the rights of the petitioner. 9. Furthermore, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was fully eligible as per the advertisement dated 24.06.2013 and that he met the requisite condition(s) stipulated to avail the reservation qua the TSP General Category. Therefore, he ought to have been placed at serial No. 1 in the reserve/waiting list dated 06.01.2014 and accordingly, granted appointment on the post of a ‘Junior Accountant’. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondents are entirely distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case on account of the fact that no wrong was committed by the petitioner which prevented him from duly being appointed on the said post. 10. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondents are entirely distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case on account of the fact that no wrong was committed by the petitioner which prevented him from duly being appointed on the said post. 10. Therefore, the impugned order dated 17.10.2014, wherein the petitioner’s representation was kept pending subject to approval from the Finance Department does not stand on its own legs as the petitioner’s right cannot be defeated due to an omission and negligence on part of the respondents. 11. Accordingly, considering the observations made hereinabove and considering the fact that the petitioner should have been granted appointment, at the first instance, in the year 2014 and relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (Supra), this Court is inclined to allow the present writ petition. 12. The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of ‘Junior Accountant’ under the TSP Category from the reserved list dated 06.01.2014, taking the same to be live as late as 22.04.2014, when the petitioner made his first representation before the respondents. Furthermore, if compliance of the present order is not carried out within a period of 90 days, the officer/authority concerned shall be held personally responsible for the delay. 13. In light of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. All pending applications stand disposed of.