Judgment : 1. The instant writ petitions, which raise a common question of law, are hereby heard together and are being decided by this common order, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. This approach is being adopted in the interest of judicial efficiency and to prevent multiplicity of litigation, as the petitions involve identical legal issues. 2. The lead matter in the instant case with the consent of parties is taken as SB Civil Writ Petition No.566/2021 (Bharat Rathore & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) . It is hereby made clear that the ratio passed therein shall be made mutatis mutandis applicable to all the connected petitions. 3. The present writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “i) The impugned actions of the respondents of not picking up further 193 candidates from the revised waiting list dated 16.07.2018 against ineligible candidates and non-joiners against the available vacancies of the advertisement dated 26.07.2013 may kindly be declared illegal and arbitrary and therefore, same may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice. ii) the respondents may kindly be directed by issuing of writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the respondents may kindly be directed to:- a) operate the revised waiting list dated 16.07.2018 against all the non-joiners and ineligible candidates of the advertisement dated 26.07.2013; b) give appointment to humble Petitioners on the post of Clerk Grade - II with all the consequential benefits." 4. Brief facts of the case are as follows: 4.1 That an advertisement dated 26.07.2013 was issued by the respondent- Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) inviting applications for the post of Clerk Grade - II, by which 33 posts for RPSC and 7538 posts for Rajasthan Subordinate Offices were advertised. Subsequently, by the corrigendum dated 04.07.2017, 195 posts for the office of secretariat services were also included and seats qua RPSC were enhanced from 33 to 40. 4.2. Thereafter, examination was conducted, and results were declared. Moreover, on the same day, i.e., 07.07.2017, waiting list results were also declared wherein, petitioners were selected however, the same was provisional. 4.3. The controversy arose when the advertisement for the next recruitment was published on 16.04.2018. 4.2. Thereafter, examination was conducted, and results were declared. Moreover, on the same day, i.e., 07.07.2017, waiting list results were also declared wherein, petitioners were selected however, the same was provisional. 4.3. The controversy arose when the advertisement for the next recruitment was published on 16.04.2018. It was noted that the said advertisement did not contain any vacancy of the earlier advertisement, and after the recommendation, the appointing authorities started calling requisition names from the waiting list against the non-joiners and ineligible candidates. 5. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that by the requisition letter dated 05.07.2018, respondents sought names of candidates from the waiting list and in pursuance to same, RPSC declared the reshuffle result on13.07.2018 and revised waiting list on 16.07.2018. 6. It was further submitted that despite being selected in the revised waiting list in the appropriate category, the respondents did not include the name of petitioners in the first pick up list declared on 18.07.2018 from the waiting list dated 16.07.2018. 7. Further, it was submitted that vide various letters respondents have admitted the fact that from the overall list of 1197 non-joiner/ineligible candidates, 917 eligible candidates were selected by the RPSC, and out of 917 candidates also some of were declared ineligible after the document verification process. 8. Furthermore, it was submitted that the Circular dated 26.04.2018 issued by the department, resultant to which waiting list of the previous selection process of Clerk Grade II was lapsed on initiation of fresh recruitment process and next recruitment process were declared to be held on 12.08.2018, however the decision taken pursuant to the said circular was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court in SB Civil Writ Petition No.24225/2018 (Rameshwar Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), whereby, Court stayed the said decision qua non- operation of waiting list and directed that the waiting list dated 16.07.2018 shall remain operative. 9. Additionally, it was submitted that the said order of Court was not challenged by the department of DOP as per their decision taken on 12.01.2020, and RPSC was also directed to select 333 candidates from the revised waiting list. Subsequently, RPSC issued a third pick up list on 20.08.2020 and in that list also, RPSC did not include the name of the petitioners. 10. Subsequently, RPSC issued a third pick up list on 20.08.2020 and in that list also, RPSC did not include the name of the petitioners. 10. Lastly, it was submitted that petitioners are aggrieved by the action of respondents for not selecting requisite candidates from the revised waiting list against ineligible candidates and non- joiners, and that the respondents failed to consider circular dated 13.01.2016 wherein it was clearly stated that the six months of the waiting list would be operative from the last requisition made by RPSC, and the mandate of Rule 28 of Rajasthan Subordinate Office Ministerial Service Rules 1999 which require the publication of list of suitable candidates and meritorious candidates. Therefore, in the light of the above stated, petitioners have prayed that the petition may be allowed in toto, and action of the respondents be declared illegal and arbitrary. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the contentions of the learned counsel representing petitioners and submitted that the writ petition filed by petitioners having different cause of action is not maintainable under the provisions of Section 375(4) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952. 12. It was further submitted that the respective petitions lack territorial jurisdiction, and the same lies at Jodhpur considering the residence of some petitioners. In support of the above said, reliance was placed upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court titled as Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association Vs. Union of India & Ors.; [ 2001(2) SCC 294 ]. Therefore, the instant petitions are not tenable. 13. Further, it was submitted that the instant petitions are filed with a delay of approximately 8 years in the Year 2021 against the advertisement of 2013. 14. Additionally, whilst placing reliance upon the circular dated 26.04.2018, issued by Department of Personnel it was submitted that once the fresh process qua recruitment commence, the previous selection process thereby stands lapsed along with the waiting list, and if any vacancy remains unfilled due to any reason any reason whatsoever, such vacancy shall be deemed to have lapsed and shall not be carried forward, any process to fill such vacancy shall be made only through a fresh recruitment process conducted by RPSC. 15. 15. Furthermore, it was submitted that in compliance of the interim order dated 10.12.2018, total 999 candidates were allotted departments, out of which 333 candidates had not joined their duties and against these 317 candidates were selected, and 228 candidates from the waiting list were allotted departments. Thereafter, upon completion of the selection process of successful candidates fresh recruitment on the post of Junior Assistant was held in the Year 2018, and the same is complete, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in the writ petition. 16. It was further submitted that if the said exercise and the order pronounced in the case of Rameshwar Prasad Sharma (supra) are implemented in the present context, it would lead to an infinite and unending process, resulting in a lack of closure and finality. 17. Consequently, it was asserted that the recruitment process for the Year 2013 has been finalized and has attained finality. Moreover, RPSC had issued a new recruitment notification for the post of Clerk Grade II, and that the examination for the said post has been concluded, as evidenced by the Circular dated 26.04.2018 (Annexure R/1). 18. Learned counsel for the respondents whilst placed reliance upon an additional affidavit filed by Section Officer, Administrative Reform - 3, whereby it was contended that remaining vacant posts in the LDC Grade - II Examination – 2013, were included in the Junior Assistant Recruitment Examination – 2018, where as many as 114 departments were included, thus no post remains vacant in the LDC Grade - II Recruitment - 2013. Moreover, the Secretary, Department of Personnel, in an affidavit filed in pursuance of the order dated 29.08.2024, specifically contended that there are no vacancies available for the post of LDC in furtherance to the advertisement dated 26.07.2013. 19. It was further submitted that a fresh selection process has been operated by Staff Selection Board and therefore, lis in question does not survive. 20. Learned counsel for the respondents whilst placing reliance upon the judgments passed by Apex Court titled as K. Jayamohan Vs. State of Kerala & Ors.; (Civil Appeal No.3384/1997), Sushma Suri Vs. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Anr.; [ (1999) 1 SCC 330 ], Rakhi Ray & Ors. Vs. The High Court of Delhi & Ors., reported in ( 2010(2) SCR 239 ) and Shankarsan Dash Vs. State of Kerala & Ors.; (Civil Appeal No.3384/1997), Sushma Suri Vs. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Anr.; [ (1999) 1 SCC 330 ], Rakhi Ray & Ors. Vs. The High Court of Delhi & Ors., reported in ( 2010(2) SCR 239 ) and Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 as well as the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; (S.B.Civi Writ Petition No.7978/2022) along with other connected writ petitions, had submitted that waiting list candidates have no vested rights and once final selection is already completed and future recruitment has taken place, then the challenge cannot be made at a belated stage. 21. Heard and considered. 22. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, after meticulously scanning the records, this Court has noted that short controversy involved in the instant matter pertains to the inaction of respondents in not selecting 193 candidates from the revised waiting list dated 16.07.2018 against ineligible candidates and non-joiners qua the available vacancies as advertised in the advertisement dated 26.07.2013. 23. This Court upon perusal of the material available on record has made the following observations: - 23.1 That advertisement dated 26.07.2013 was published by the RPSC and Rajasthan Subordinate Services for 33 and 7538 posts of LDC (Grade - II), which was subsequently increased by the future corrigendum. 23.2 That the exam qua the same was held in the year 2016- 17 and minimum eligibility marks were 40% for the same. Thereafter, a list and revised list of selected candidates were prepared. 23.3 Moreover, upon commencement of the future selections, Department of Personnel issued a Circular dated 26.04.2018 and the same is available on record, whereby it was directed that once fresh process of recruitment commence, then the whole selection process which was previously held and the waiting list of that recruitment shall lapse, irrespective of any reason, and decision was taken in pursuance to the same to lapse the waiting list. 23.4 That pursuant to interim order dated 10.12.2018 passed in the case of Rameshwar Prasad Sharma (supra) , operation of the impugned order dated 14.09.2018 was stayed and directions were passed to not lapse the waiting list dated 16.07.2018 qua the recruitment on the post of Clerk Grade – II, for the advertisement of the year 2013 and the same be operated as per the requisition of the Department of Administrative Reform. 23.4 That in pre-litigation meeting, after taking due directions from the Hon’ble Chief Minister, the decision was taken to not file an appeal, and the State Government on few occasions has recommended RPSC for considering candidates from recommended pick-up list/reserve list qua non-joiners and ineligible candidates. The effect to the said direction was given on a few occasions. Thereafter, it was felt that the said process is nothing but an endless process. 23.5 It is noted that the new recruitment- 2018 process carried out by Staff Selection Board is about to be completed as stated in the affidavit furnished by the respondents. 23.6 That vacancies qua advertisement of the year 2013 has lapsed for the post of LDC and the same is clarified by an additional affidavit furnished by the competent authorities in furtherance of the order dated 29.08.2024. 23.7 That RTI information which is revealed holds no significance. 23.8 That an additional affidavit filed by the Section Officer, Administrative Reforms Department was in compliance of the order dated 03.08.2022 wherein it was stated that if any post qua LDC Grade - II is vacant, the same be included in the new recruitment of Junior Assistant Recruitment Examination - 2018 and therefore, there are no vacancies available to be included. 24. This Court, in light of the above stated observation, is of the view that no relief can be granted to the petitioners qua the prayer made in the writ petition on account of the following reasons: 24.1 The petitioners, as per waiting list, were selected in the reserve list. 24. This Court, in light of the above stated observation, is of the view that no relief can be granted to the petitioners qua the prayer made in the writ petition on account of the following reasons: 24.1 The petitioners, as per waiting list, were selected in the reserve list. 24.2 That they have no vested rights for employment, and waiting list prepared in pursuance of an examination conducted does not furnish a perpetual source of recruitment; that the waiting list is operative only for the contingency that if any of the selected candidates do not join pursuant to their selection, then under such an eventuality, persons from the waiting list may be pushed up for appointment against the vacancy so caused; that qua post so advertised no vacancies remain as on date; that the candidates from the waiting list prepared against the examination conducted in pursuance of a specific advertisement, cannot subsequently claim a right of appointment or consideration for future appointments to be made with respect to a different advertisement. 24.3 The advertisement and the recruitment issued in the year 2018 has attained finality, and in the light of the order passed in the case of Rameshwar Prasad Sharma (supra) , the authorities of the State Government and RPSC have given effect to the waiting list as per merit, wherein the petitioners have not found place. 24.4 As on date, there is no recommendation, which was pending or was referred to by the State Government to RPSC. 24.5 In the additional affidavit, the competent authority has categorically stated that the fresh selection process is initiated, which is completed and no vacancies, as on date, exists and fresh selection process has been concluded. 24.6 That reliance placed by learned counsel for the respondents on the above mentioned judgments to supports their contentions, whereby it is held that empanelment in the reserve list did not give and create any vested right qua the candidates/petitioners, that too, at a belated stage and if fresh advertisement is issued and the vacancies are merged, endless effect cannot be given to the past advertisement, that too, of the year 2013. 24.7. 24.7. In this background reliance is placed by learned counsel for the respondents upon judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of K.Jayamohan (supra), wherein it is held as under: "It is settled legal position that merely because a candidate is selected and kept in the waiting list, he does not acquire any absolute right for appointment. It is open to the Government to make the appointment or not. Even if there is any vacancy, it is not incumbent upon the Government to fill up the same. But the appointing authority must give reasonable explanation for non-appointment. Equally, the Public Service Commission/recuitement agency shall prepare waiting list only to the extent of anticipated vacancies. In view of the above settled legal position, no error is found in the judgment of the High Court warranting interference." 24.8 That the judgment passed by Apex Court in State of Haryana vs. Suresh Chander Marwaha and Ors .; (1986(3) SCR 785), wherein Court held that the existence vacancies do not give a legal right to a selected candidate. 24.9. That the Apex Court in the case of Surinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors.; [AIR (1998) SC 18] , held that the waiting list prepared in an examination conducted by the Commission does not furnish a source of recruitment. In case of extreme exigency, the Government may as a matter of policy decision pick up people in order of merit from the waiting list. 25. Accordingly, considering the above cited judgments and observations, the instant writ petitions are hereby dismissed. 26. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.