ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs :- “A. By an appropriate writ order or direction, any order denying to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Senior Teacher (Sanskrit) against the non-joined candidates pursuant to advertisement dated 09.04.2018 (Annex.1) may kindly be quashed and set aside. B. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to issue a fresh pick list while exclude the name of the non-joined candidates for the post of Senior Teacher (Sanskrit) pursuant to advertisement dated 09.04.2018. C. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for her final selection against the non-joined candidates as per her reserve merit status for the post of Senior Teacher (Sanskrit) in pursuance of the advertisement dated 09.04.2018. D. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to permit the petitioner in the further selection process and provide the appointment in her respective category of General Women as per her marks and merit status against the available vacant posts as not filled-up by non-joined candidates for the post of Senior Teacher (Sanskrit) in pursuance of the advertisement dated 09.04.2018 with all consequential benefits.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner has qualification of graduation and B.Ed. and as per her eligibility, participated in the recruitment process for the post of Senior Teacher (Sanskrit) arising out of the advertisement dated 09.04.2018. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner qualified in the said examination, as she was having cut off in the General Women (Non-TSP) category candidate, who placed in reserved merit at serial No.17. The reserved merit list as evident from the Annexure-6 was operated upto reserved merit list No.16 whereby the last appointment was offered to one Anju Sharma, but she did not join for the said post. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the case of the present petitioner is that while the list of non-joiners given in Annexure-6 was made the information regarding one Sanjeev Kumar was not given to the R.P.S.C., and thus, the reserved list, which ought to be operated upto serial no. 17 could not be operated. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the case of the present petitioner is that while the list of non-joiners given in Annexure-6 was made the information regarding one Sanjeev Kumar was not given to the R.P.S.C., and thus, the reserved list, which ought to be operated upto serial no. 17 could not be operated. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the office note of Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, which is on record at page 142 of the writ petition; the para Nos. 10, 11, 22 and 23 of the office note reads as follows:- ^^10- izLrqr izdj.k dk ijh{k.k funs'kd ek/;fed f'k{kk chdkusj }kjk dkfeZd foHkkx ds ifji= fnukad 21-12-2021 ¼i`- 42&43@lh½ ds lanHkZ esa fd;k x;k gS tcfd izdj.k esa eq[; lwph ds fo:) izFke lwph fnukad 17-03-2020 dks iszf"kr dh xbZ gSA vFkkZr~ izdj.k esa dkfeZd foHkkx dk ifji= fnukad 21-12-2021 ¼i`- 42&43@lh½ izHkkoh ugha gksdj rRle; ds izko/kku gh ykxw gksaxsA 11- mijksDrkuqlkj Li"V gS fd izdj.k esa izFker% la;qDr funs'kd] Ldwy f'k{kk ikyh laHkkx }kjk vH;FkhZ latho dqekj dk vkosnu foyEc ls izsf"kr fd;k x;kA rRi'pkr~ funs'kd] ek/;fed f'k{kk chdkusj }kjk izdj.k dk xyr ifji= ds laca/k esa ijh{k.k fd;k x;k gSA bl dkj.k vH;FkhZ latho dqekj dk vkosnu iqu% vkjih,llh dks izsf"kr ugha fd;k tk ldkA tks fd laHkor% iwoZ izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj izsf"kr fd;k tkuk pkfg, FkkA 22- bl laca/k esa fuosnu gS fd dkfeZd foHkkx dh jk; ¼i`"B 41@lh½ ds vuqlkj ofj"B v/;kid&2016 dh HkrhZ esa eq[; lwph dkfeZd foHkkx ds uohu ifji= fnukad 27-12-2021 ls iwoZ vfHkLrkfor dj nh xbZ FkhA vr% mDr HkrhZ esa izrh{kk lwph ls uke vfHkLrkfor djus dh le;kof/k dh x.kuk eq[; lwph vfHkLrkfor djus ds le; izHkkoh funsZ'kksa ¼ifji= fnukad 19-7-2021] 13-1-2016 ,oa 26-4-2018½ ds vuqlkj gksxhA 23- mDr izdj.k esa la;qDr funs'kd Ldwy f'k{kk ikyh }kjk voxr ¼i`"B 27@lh½ djok;k x;k gS fd mDr HkrhZ gsrq vfUre dk;Zxzg.k frfFk rd dk;Zxzg.k ugha djus okys vH;fFkZ;ksa dk ewy vkosnu i= izkIr gksus esa foyEc gksus ds dkj.k mudk fu;qfDr vkns'k fujLr djus esa nsjh gksus ds dkj.k Jh latho dqekj dk vkosnu vkjih,llh dks izsf"kr ugha fd;k tk ldkA mDr izdj.k esa dk;kZy;h izfØ;k ds dkj.k 6 ekg ls vf/kd dk le; O;rhr gks x;kA ftlds dkj.k izrh{kk lwph ls lqJh oanuk fu;qfDr ls oafpr jghA** 6. The aforequoted para Nos. The aforequoted para Nos. 10, 11, 22 and 23 of the office note deal with the proposition that the candidate-Sanjeev Kumar did not join and due to wrongful application of the circular dated 21.12.2021, the select list in lieu of Sanjeev Kumar was not operated. The deliberation as per learned counsel for the petitioner, which continued on the same file and particularly in paras No. 21 and 23 was that the advertisement was of an earlier date whereas the circular dated 27.12.2021 could not have been applied retrospectively depriving operation with the reserved list. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn attention of this Court to para No.20 whereby candidate Sanjeev Kumar’s vacancy has not been sent to the R.P.S.C. is recorded on count of the fact that six months had elapsed, which it has been further recorded has resulted into deprivation of the present petitioner–Ms. Vandana. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that through the aforesaid office note, it is clear that the State-respondents was very well aware that due to the improper implementation of circular dated 27.12.2021, which debarred the merit list to be operated after six months retrospectively for an advertisement which were issued on an earlier date 09.04.2018 has resulted into the vacancy of Sanjeev Kumar not culminating into the operation of reserve list through the position of serial no. 17 and a clear name of the present petitioner is mentioned in the order sheet. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of this Court to para 26 at page 147, which reads as follows. foHkkx ls iwNk tk ldrk gS fd Jh latho dqekj us foHkkx }kjk fu/kkZfjr fd;s x;s le;&lhek esa dk;Zxzg.k ugha fd;k rks oDr dk;Zxzg.k vof/k esa vfHko`f) gsrq izkFkhZ us vkosnu izLrqr fd;k vkSj ml ij D;k dk;Zokgh dh xbZA ;fn izkFkhZ us fcuk fdlh lwpuk ds dk;kZ- vkns'k esa fn;s x;s le; esa dk;Zxzg.k ugha fd;k rks foHkkx us 5&6 eghus rd izdj.k dks yafcr D;ksa j[kkA vU;Fkk fdlh vU; O;fDr dh izrh{kk lwph }kjk fu;qfDr gks ldrh FkhA ;g foHkkx dh ykijokgh ifjyf{kr gks jgh gSaA blesa nks"kh vf/kdkjh deZpkjh dks mÙkjnk;h Bgjkuk pkfg,A 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a clear case where the non-joining of candidate-Sanjeev Kumar ought to have been given effect to, to operate the reserve list, which were already operated upto serial no. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a clear case where the non-joining of candidate-Sanjeev Kumar ought to have been given effect to, to operate the reserve list, which were already operated upto serial no. 16 and if it was operated, the present petitioner, who was at serial no. 17, would have been included in the present recruitment. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that candidate Sanjeev Kumar was of general male category, and thus, the vacancy of Sanjeev Kumar could have included the present petitioner in category merit as well as all other eligibility and proposition, which required the petitioner to have been given the appointment. 12. Learned counsel for the State-respondent has drawn attention of this Court to the affidavit filed by the respondents-State whereby it has been stated that while the recruitment for the post of Senior Teacher (Sanskrit) Secondary Education for various subjects-2018 was taking place, the stand was taken by the State to operate the circular dated 27.12.2021 debarring the merit list from operating after six months. 13. Learned counsel for the State-respondent has drawn attention of this Court to para-5 of the Additional Affidavit at page-153 of the writ petition, which reads as follows :- “5. That it is submitted that insofar as recruitment of Senior Teacher (Sanskrit) through recruitment notification-2018 in the category of the petitioner .i.e General Women (Non-TSP) is concerned, at the relevant point of time, requisition for 293 vacant posts were sent to the R.P.S.C. and appointment to the 293 candidates in General Women (Non-TSP) category on the post of Senior Teacher (Sanskrit) were provided. Thereafter, information as regard non-joinder were sought through letter dated 19.03.2021 and the information provided by the Joint Directors, School Education provided that 4 candidates in General Woman (Non-TSP) category on the post of Senior Teacher (Sanskrit) did not join. Thus, for the 4 vacant posts of Senior Teacher (Sanskrit) in General Woman (Non-TSP) category, request was made to the RPSC for sending names from the reserved/waiting list. In pursuance thereof, RPSC had sent names of 4 candidates for appointment on the post of Senior Teacher (Sanskrit) in General Woman (Non-TSP) category and those candidates were provided appointment and posting. Thus, for the 4 vacant posts of Senior Teacher (Sanskrit) in General Woman (Non-TSP) category, request was made to the RPSC for sending names from the reserved/waiting list. In pursuance thereof, RPSC had sent names of 4 candidates for appointment on the post of Senior Teacher (Sanskrit) in General Woman (Non-TSP) category and those candidates were provided appointment and posting. In this way, all the 293 posts of Senior Teacher (Sanskrit) in the General Woman (Non-TSP) category were filled-in from the candidates standing higher and above the petitioner in the merit-list and no post is vacant as on date in the category of the petitioner. Insofar as claim of the petitioner to provide her appointment against the non-joinder Shri Sanjeev Kumar who did not join, it would be relevant to place on record copies of the letter dated 27.1.2022 written by the Joint Director, School Education, Pali Division alongwith office-orders dated 25.1.2022 whereby the appointment of four candidates were cancelled on account of non-joining by them and same are collectively marked as Annexure-A/A/1. It would be evident from Annex.A/A/1 that the candidate namely Anita Kumari was candidate for the post of Senior Teacher (Science); candidate namely Sweety Sharma was candidate for the post of Senior Teacher (Maths); candidate namely Mahendra Kumar was candidate for the post of Senior Teacher (English) and the candidate namely Sanjeev Kumar was candidate for the post of Senior Teacher (Sanskrit) who belongs to General-Male (Non-TSP) category. It is respectfully submitted that the task of issuance of reserve-list and selecting a candidate is carried out by the RPSC and not by the answering respondents-Department. From time to time, RPSC sent recommendations which were less than 10% of notified posts and therefore, keeping in view the guidelines provided in the circular dated 27.12.2021, the date of first recommendation was made basis for calculation of the period of 6 months according to which, statutory period of 06 months expired” 14. Learned counsel for the State-respondent further submits that against non-joining of candidate-Sanjeev Kumar, the general male non-TSP category was not operated because it was a task which had to be done by the RPSC and not by the State. 15. Learned counsel for the State-respondent further submits that against non-joining of candidate-Sanjeev Kumar, the general male non-TSP category was not operated because it was a task which had to be done by the RPSC and not by the State. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent-R.P.S.C. submits that if there were any non-joiner, a clear instructions should have been given by the State to operate the merit list or an otherwise, it was not open for the R.P.S.C. to take decision regarding the same. 16. Learned counsel for the respondent-R.P.S.C. further submits that it was not clarified that what would be the impact of non-joining of candidate-Sanjeev Kumar, who was general male non-TSP category, as the Commission was bound to conduct the selection process strictly in accordance with the recommendation already made by the State and according to the requisition in pursuance to the non-joiner’s, which was clearly not sent in this case. 17. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the present petitioner was competing for the post of the Senior Teacher (Sanskrit) in pursuance of advertisement dated 09.04.2018 and stood in merit list whereby she was declared as 17th in the reserved list as per Annexure-5 and 6. This position of merit arose out of her marks being 384.43 for the exam of non-TSP Senior Teacher (Sanskrit) bearing roll no. 810023. It is an admitted position on record that the select list was operated upto reserve list No.16 whereas the petitioner is at serial no. 17 of the reserve list. From the aforesaid record as well as the submission made, it is also undisputed that the State was very well aware that Sanjeev Kumar, who was general male category candidate, did not join and his non-joining was not given effect to, so as to operate the reserve list despite the State contemplating the same in para nos. 10, 11, 22, 23 and 26 as reproduced hereinabove from the order sheets of the office of A.C.S. Education. The short controversy which has emanated out of the whole record is that the Government despite realizing that upon non-joining of Sanjeev Kumar, the petitioner should have been given an appointment by operating the reserve list, which was not given effect to the same on count of the circular dated 27.12.2021, which does not call for operation of reserve list after six months. 18. 18. This Court is of the clear opinion that the circular dated 27.12.2021 to which the State is relying upon to not give effect to reserve list cannot be applied retrospectively for the recruitment process arising out of the advertisement dated 09.04.2018 for the post of the Senior Teacher (Sanskrit). Once the operation of the circular in question goes away then it was required for the State to operate the reserve list Nos. 16 to 17 on account of non-joining of candidate-Sanjeev Kumar, which is not disputed to the extent of his non-joining and the next reserve list candidate being the petitioner. The A.C.S. Education in its Para-23 has categorically said that Sanjeev Kumar’s non-joining has resulted into reserve list not been operated depriving present petitioner-Vandana from the appointment on count of the circular dated 27.12.2021. 19. Such position which is there on record and not denied by the State makes it clear that applying the circular dated 27.12.2021 retrospectively on the selection process initiated in pursuance of the result declared by respondent is contrary to law and cannot be sustained. Thus, the respondents are directed to operate the reserve list for the present petitioner, who is at serial no. 17, in lieu of candidate-Sanjeev Kumar, whose non-joining and operation of the reserve list which was already operated upto serial No.16 would result into an appointment to the present petitioner, who stands at serial no. 17. 20. In view of the above, the writ petition in the aforesaid terms stands allowed. The respondents are directed to give appointment to the present petitioner on the post of Senior Teacher (Sanskrit). All the benefits accruing to the present petitioner out of the present order shall be of prospective nature. The same shall be done expeditiously within a period of three months from receiving the certified copy of this order. All pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.