ORDER : (Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.) : The present batch of writ petitions is based on similar and identical facts, therefore, the same are being heard and disposed of by this common order. 2. For proper adjudication of the controversy, facts of S.B. Civil Writ petition No.14640/2022 (Gurmeet Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) are taken into consideration. 3. The petitioner in the present writ petition has made a prayer that waiting list/second list/reserve list for the total 10029 posts of Lower Division Clerk (hereinafter referred to as ‘LDC’) in pursuance of the advertisement issued in the year 2013 should be published and the case of the petitioner may be considered for appointment on the post of LDC. 4. Briefly noted the facts in the writ petition are that in the year 2013, the respondent-State advertised the vacancies for appointment on the post of LDC. The petitioner being eligible in all respects applied for the post of LDC by filing an appropriate application. While the process for selection was in-currency, certain writ petitions were filed before this Court with respect to grant of bonus marks. In those writ petitions, the matter went up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed of all the Special Leave Petitions with a direction that the State Government may grant 15 bonus marks against service experience. While the petitioner was getting attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, number of writ petitions were filed before this Court and necessary directions from time to time in those writ petitions were given. One of the direction in the case of Arjun Ram Nain vs. State (Panchayati Raj Dep) Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3752/2017) was given, wherein the State was directed to produce the minutes of the meeting for preparing the list of selected candidates, revised the select list of LDC and if in the process of such revision the candidates come in the merit list, they were directed to be given appointment and the selected candidates were directed to join the place of posting by 15.07.2017. In the similar fashion, other directions were issued and in compliance thereof, the State Government complying the directions given in the cases granted appointments to the eligible candidates. 5. In the similar fashion, other directions were issued and in compliance thereof, the State Government complying the directions given in the cases granted appointments to the eligible candidates. 5. This Court, after taking into consideration the directions issued from time to time, also passed various directions by passing various orders and the State Government in compliance thereof held the meetings and the minutes of the same were produced before this Court. On certain occasions, when the State failed to comply with the directions issued by this Court, suo-moto cognizance for contempt was also taken against such officers for not implementing the orders in time. Mainly, the dispute was revolving around number of vacancies advertised, number of vacancies filled in by the State Government and balance of vacancies available with the respondent Department to be filled in by the candidates who have applied for the post of LDC in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the respondents in the year 2013. This Court ultimately vide order dated 25.07.2024 directed the State Government to file an additional affidavit clearly reflecting the number of posts advertised, the number of posts filled in by the State Government and the number of vacancies available at present to be filled in from the vacant posts advertised by the State Government in the year 2013. Pursuant to the order dated 25.07.2024, the State Government has filed a detailed additional affidavit before this Court. Since the candidature of the petitioner was not considered despite the vacancies being available with the respondent Department, therefore, the present writ petition has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that although the petitioners are having all the requisite qualifications for appointment on the post of LDC, the candidature of the petitioners is not being considered despite the directions having been issued by this Court from time to time on the vacancies available with the respondent Department. Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submits that the petitioners had been waiting for appointment on the post of LDC for last few years but the State has failed to take any decision in the matter for consideration of their cases for appointments on the post of LDC. Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submits that the petitioners had been waiting for appointment on the post of LDC for last few years but the State has failed to take any decision in the matter for consideration of their cases for appointments on the post of LDC. They, therefore, pray that the respondent State may be given direction to consider the cases of the petitioners for appointments on the post of LDC on the vacant posts available as reflected by them in the additional affidavit filed today in the form of compliance report. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the candidature of the petitioners may also be directed to be considered for the vacancies which are available due to the vacancies created on account of non-joining, on account of death of some of the candidates or the candidates leaving the job after joining and other like matters. 7. Per contra, Mr. Rajesh Panwar, learned Sr. Adv. cum learned Additional Advocate General submits that the chronology of events clearly shows that the action of the State Government is perfectly in consonance with the provisions of law and the State Government has taken all possible steps to fill in the advertised vacancies as per their need to fill the posts in the Panchayati Raj Department. Learned Senior Counsel submits that on account of the pending litigation before the various Courts, immediate exercise to fill up the vacancies could not be taken. He further submits that during the pendency of the present litigation, the restructuring of the cadre strength of LDSs was made in the respondent Department. After restructuring the cadre strength, there was change in the staffing pattern, therefore, availability of number of posts of LDCs at different Panchayat Samities and Gram Panchayats have undergone a change. The entire exercise was based on the requirement of the manpower for completing the workloads at Panchayat Samities and Gram Panchayats. He submits that a detailed chronology of events has been given by the respondents by way of filing an additional affidavit which is self explanatory and which shows that State has taken all possible steps to complete the recruitment exercise undertaken by them in the year 2013. 8. He submits that a detailed chronology of events has been given by the respondents by way of filing an additional affidavit which is self explanatory and which shows that State has taken all possible steps to complete the recruitment exercise undertaken by them in the year 2013. 8. Learned Additional Advocate General, however, undertakes that the cases of the petitioners will be considered on the available vacancies as reflected in the additional affidavit and other vacancies which are available to the respondents, if on account of candidate leaving the job, those who have died, those who have not joined after having been selected in pursuance of the selection exercise undertaken by them in pursuance of the advertisement of 2013. Learned Additional Advocate General assures this Court that the cases of the petitioners will be considered in the most fair and transparent manner and those candidates who are meeting the eligibility criteria will be given appointments within the stipulated period of time after completion of the entire exercise. 9. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the relevant record of the case. 10. It is a settled law that mere inclusion of name of a candidate in the select list does not confer any vested right to get an order of appointment. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. A candidate in the select list has only right to be considered for appointment. Such a right is not an indefeasible right but it is only a right to be considered for appointment. Hence, in the present case also, the petitioners have only right of consideration for appointment on the post of LDC. 11. No doubt, the present litigation has a chequered history and the recruitment to the post of LDC in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the respondents in the year 2013 is still in-currency but the fact of the matter is the selected candidate has only a right of consideration. The candidates, who are eligible and who have appeared in the examination for consideration of their candidature, are required to be considered by the State Government as per the provisions of law. The candidates, who are eligible and who have appeared in the examination for consideration of their candidature, are required to be considered by the State Government as per the provisions of law. The directions issued by this Court from time to time with respect to the available vacancies have been summarized and submitted by the respondents in the additional affidavit filed before this Court. The chronology of events right from issuance of the advertisement upto available vacancies today, has been depicted by the respondents in their affidavit which is gainfully reproduced as under :- “10. That it is brought to the attention of this Hon'ble Court that the process of cadre restructuring at all three levels in Panchayati Raj Institutions was initiated on 10.05.2022 due to the excess staff at the Gram Panchayat level. Subsequently, respondent no. 2 issued an order dated 18.08.2022, restructuring the cadre strength as follows: 721 posts at Zila Parishad level, 3705 posts at Panchayat Samiti level and 11304 posts at Gram Panchayat level, making a total of 15730 posts, out of which, 12,911 posts were designated for LDC. It is humbly submitted that the initially sanctioned posts for LDC were 19275, however after cadre restructure, only 12911 posts were sanctioned for the post of LDC and out of 12,911 posts, 1,619 have already been filled by LDCA appointed before 2013, and 9,560 posts were filled pursuant to Recruitment 2013. Therefore, a total of 11,179 LDCs are currently working as of today. A copy district wise list is submitted herewith and marked as Annexure-C/7. 11. From the above mentioned submission, it is evident that as of today, there are 1,732 vacant posts remaining from a total of 12,911 sanctioned posts, after deducting 11,179 candidates currently working. Further, it is pertinent to mentioned that 2268 posts became vacant due to promotion of LDC at higher level. Therefore, In pursuance of the order dated 04.05.2022 and 26.05.2022, the matter regarding re-initiation of recruitment process was placed before the concerned Higher Authority for the purpose of seeking necessary approval and thereafter, administrative sanction was granted by Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department on 07.09.2022 and decision was taken to fill 4000 posts (comprising 1,732 existing vacancies and the 2,268 posts that became vacant due to the promotions) for LDC advertised in pursuance of the recruitment of 2013. A copy of the order dated 07.09.2022 is submitted herewith and marked as Annexure-C/B. 12. That out of 4000 posts advertised vide order dated 07.09.2022, appointment on 3608 posts have already made. A copy district wise list is submitted herewith and marked as Annexure-C/9. However, it is humbly submitted that various writs are pending before the Hon'ble Court and in some cases, interim order are also in effect. 13. That it is humbly submitted that the Division Bench of this Hon'ble court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors Versus Narayan Lal Gurjar; D.B SAW No. 793/2019, observed as under: "In these circumstances, for the Court to have intervened and directed that the petitioner be placed at par and considered which for indeed the 2013, recruitment in the entirely was in opinion of this Court, unwarranted. The consequences of such decisions, needless to say, are fraught and have larger repercussions- not least of undoing a recruitment the (and consequent appointments) that attained finality gear appointments) that attained and entirely throwing out of the process, by re-opening the recruitment method after several years" That in view of the ratio laid in the case of Narayan Lal Gurjar (supra), the process of the recruitment of the year 2013, has come to an end and respondent department has already initiated advertisement a fresh recruitment dated 29.08.2024. A vide of copy advertisement dated 29.08.2024 is submitted herewith and marked as Annexure-C/10. 14. That in view of the above-stated submissions, the answering respondents have complied with the order dated 25.07.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Court in its letter and spirit.” 12. A close reading of the above mentioned submissions made in the additional affidavit clearly show that respondents are having 392 posts/vacancies still available with them for filling up the post of LDC in pursuance of the advertisement issued by them in the year 2013. Some of these vacancies are left unfilled on account of the interim orders granted by different Courts. Some of these vacancies are left unfilled on account of the interim orders granted by different Courts. Thus, this Court is of the view that the selection on the post of LDC remained in tandem for more than 11 years and, therefore, ends of justice will be met, if the State Government is directed to consider the cases for appointment of all the candidates who have participated by filling in their application forms for the post of LDC in pursuance of the recruitment drive undertaken by them in the year 2013 by examining their merit position, eligibility and other credentials for the post of LDC. 13. It is, however, made clear that the consideration for the post of LDC in pursuance of the 2013 advertisement cannot be treated as an on-going process and, therefore, no further directions/ applications/petitions on this aspect of the matter shall be entertained. The respondents are directed to consider the cases of all similarly situated applicants viz-a-viz the present petitioners for the post of LDCs keeping in mind the eligibility criteria and other aspects of the matter for appointments as per the Rules. 14. The respondents are directed to complete this process at the earliest so that a finality could be arrived at in concluding the process of appointment in pursuance of the advertised vacancies of the year 2013. 15. Needless to say that the appointments already granted by the State Government shall not be disturbed by this decision in the present cases. 16. With these observations, the writ petitions stand disposed of. The stay applications and other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 17. A copy of this order be placed in each connected file.