JUDGMENT
Tatia, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. According to petitioner, in pursuance of the instruction contained in letter dated 14th Oct. 1997, the Superintendent of Police issued Notification dated 4th Nov., 1997 inviting applications for recruitment and appointment of 36 Constable/Drivers in Jalore District. In response to the above Notification, written examinations were conducted on 8th Dec., 1997 and result was declared on 23.2.1998. The petitioner is said to be amongst those who were declared successful in the written examination. The petitioner alongwith other selected candidates were subjected to physical test on 9th March, 1998 and the final result was declared on the same date, i.e. on 9th March, 1998. According to the petitioner the vacancies were as under:-
General 18, SC-6, ST-4, OBC-8 = Total 36
3. The select list contains the name of 22 in general category, 3 in SC category, 1 in ST category, 4 in OBC category. 18 candidates of general category were kept in main list whereas 4 candidates were kept in waiting list. The petitioner’s name finds place at S.No. 2 in the waiting list. According to petitioner, the appointment orders were issued to the selected candidates and the last appointment was offered on 22nd August, 1998. Even before that date, the respondents, by letter dated 2nd June, 1998, informed the petitioner that the reserved list has lapsed after 31st March, 1998 and , therefore, no appointment can be given to the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved against the action of the respondents by which the petitioner, who was having his name at S.NO. 2 of the reserve list was denied the appointment, filed the present writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the advertisement for the post of recruitment of 18 constable/drivers in the Jalore District dated 27th Sept. 1998 it is clear that the vacancies has arisen within six months from the date of last appointment given for the post in pursuance of the advertisement issued for recruitment on 4th Nov. 1997. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a person finding name in waiting list can have legitimate expectation of appointment on account of his position in waiting list against the vacancies arising after commencement of selection process. To support his contention learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Virendra S. Hooda and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. (1). The another contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the last appointment from the select list in pursuance of the advertisement dated 4th Nov. 1997 was given on 22nd August, 1998, therefore, if any vacancy arises within six months from the date of the last appointment then the appointment is required to be given to the candidate, who was in waiting list it earlier issued advertisement for filling up the vacancy. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon another judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court delivered in the case of A.P. Aggarwal v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. (2).
5. In Virendra S. Hooda’s case referred above 12 posts of Haryana Civil and other allied services, which included 12 posts of Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch), 7 in general category and 5 in reserve category were advertised. The written examinations for the year 1991 batch was held by the haryana Public Service Commission and after interviews final result was published on 19th June, 1992. The appellant did not rank sufficiently high. In that matter it was contended that Government of Haryana issued instructions prescribing the procedure to be adopted by the Haryana Public Service Commission providing that apart from those selected candidates against the vacancies, all notified additional vacancies which arise within six months from the recommendation of the names could be filled up from amongst the names recommended by the Commission similar instructions were also issued by the Government of Haryana on 26th May, 1972. The State of Haryana requested the Commission for concurrence for. filling up 30 vacancies of the Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) for the year 1992. the result of the selection of the candidates in pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 1989 was declared on 19th June, 1992 and advertisement No. 7 was issued in the year 1992 within a period of six months and so there was necessity of further selection and the said 9 vacancies in the general category in Advertisement No. 7 has to be accommodated by candidates who were already in the waiting list/panel of the 1989 recruitment. The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the writ petition of the petitioners-appellant by which petitioner-appellant sought accommodation of the candidates who were already in waiting list/panel of the recruitment of the year 1989 wherein the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in addition to other grounds, held that the claim for directing the respondent to make appointment against posts which became available after the initiation of the process of recruitment is not justified. The Hon’ble Apex Court had an occasion to consider the matter and held that when the Government issued circulars dated 22nd March, 1957 and 26th May, 1972 providing that when vacancies arise within six months from the receipt of the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, they will have to be filled up out of the waiting list maintained by the Commission then rejection of the writ petition by the High Court on the ground that those were the administrative instructions and cannot be enforced, is not proper because when Policy has been declared by the State is to the manner of filling up the posts and that Policy is declared in terms of the rules and instructions issued by the Public Service Commissioner form time to time and when the instructions are not contrary to the rules, the respondents ought to have followed the same and directed the respondents to consider the case of the appellant for appointment to the post of Haryana Public Service (Executive Branch).
6. A bare perusal of the above judgment itself shows that there was a Policy decision of the State Government found in consonance with the rules and instructions issued by the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the Hon’ble Apex Court Court held that if vacancies arise within a period of six months from the date of previous selection, the circulars are attracted and appointments are required to be given even to the candidates whose names find place in waiting list whereas, here in this case, . there is no case of the petitioner that any such Policy decision was taken by the State of Rajasthan or any circular was issued by the State of Rajasthan providing for filling up the vacancies from the candidates whose name find place in the waiting list and vacancy arises within a period of six months from the date of previous selection. Hence, the above judgment has no application to the present case.
7. In the same manner, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court delivered in the case of A.P. Aggarwal’s case has no application to the facts of this case. The Hon’ble Apex Court, after considering the judgment of Virendra S. Hooda (supra) considered the Central Government’s office memorandum dated 14th May, 1987, which was issued when difficulties felt in filling up the vacancies occasioned in a situations where the recommended candidate joined the post for a short period and then resigned or where the vacancy occurred on account of the death of the candidate the memorandum dated 14th May, 1987 is as under:-
“The undersigned is directed to refer to this ‘Department’s O.M. No. 39021/18/84-Estt.(B) dated 6th February, 1986, 13th June, 1985 and 20th November, 1985 (copies enclosed) and to say that according to the existing procedure, the reserve lists prepared with effect from 1st January, 1985 were to be operated only to fill replacement vacancies. Earlier to this the reserve lists were being used both for replacement vacancies and fresh vacancies of identical nature. Some of the Ministries have reported difficulties in filling up of vacancies caused in a situation where the recommended candidate joined the post for a short period and then resigned or where the vacancy occurred on account of me death of the candidate, it was pointed out that the posts could not be kept vacant for a long time till the next recruitment took place.”
To over come the difficulties referred above, the UPSC decided that reserve list may be operated in cases where a vacancy is created by a candidate resigning the post or in the event of his death, within a period of six months form the date of his joining the post and it was also not made applicable for all recruitment and it was made limited in respect to statutory post and those of scientific, technical, academic or medical nature where it may not be possible to keep the post vacant till the completion of fresh recruitment or to make local arrangements. Therefore, in the above case also, the arrangement was made for peculiar situation, which is not available here in this
case as it is not the case of the petitioner that there is any decision for keeping the waiting list alive for recruitment to the post, which arises within six months from the date of select list or date of appointment of the list person from the selection of previous selection process wherein petitioner was not having sufficient high rank, but was placed in waiting list.
8. It was also contended that learned counsel for the petitioner that, as per the Rule (4) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate service Rules, 1989 there is no provision of keeping the list for six months alive and it is also submitted that forms, which occurred due to the non-availability of the members of SC/ST, are required to be filled up in accordance with normal procedure and the equivalent number of the additional vacancies shall be recruited in subsequent order. It is clear that it is only for the Government to take a decision whether the vacancies are to be filled up or to carry forward and there is no fact available on the record which discloses that the petitioner was denied appointment and other person was given appointment who was below to the petitioner, it is also a fact that it is only the Government to decide how much vacancies they want to fill up for a particular period.
9. Therefore, I do not find any force in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
