Facts in brief are that the petitioner, having acquired the requisite qualifications for appointment as a Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering in the Government Institutions applied for selection in pursuance of a notification Annexure-3 dated 28.6.2011 issued by the RPSC for recruitment on the post of Lecturer, Mechanical Engineering in the Technical Education Department. The petitioner appeared in the selection process and after being declared successful, was invited for interview vide letter Annexure-4 dated 7.11.2013. Pursuant to the holding of interviews, the RPSC issued a merit list of 46 successful candidates. Out of 46 posts advertised, six were reserved for woman (5-General Woman + 1-Widow) in the Mechanical Engineering Branch. The petitioner’s name was not reflected in the merit list. However, 20 names were reportedly kept in reserve wherein the petitioner’s name finds place at S. No. 6. Five persons above the petitioner in the reserve list Annexure-5 dated 29.11.2013 are all male candidates. The petitioner, thereafter sought information under the Right to Information Act as to the position of the five posts reserved for women candidates. She was communicated by a letter dated 30.10.2014 issued by the Technical Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jodhpur that five candidates had been appointed against the five reserved seats for General Women out of which one Miss Anupama who had been appointed at the Government Polytechnic College, Karoli, Camp Alwar did not join. The candidate placed at S. No. 5 Lajwanti Parnami joined duty on 24.9.2014.

Thus, the petitioner developed a genuine and legitimate expectation of claiming appointment on the post left vacant by non-joining of Miss Anupama. Aggrieved of the action of the respondents in not offering her appointment against the vacant post, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition. While entertaining the writ petition, this Court vide interim order dated 5.1.2015 directed the respondents to keep one post of Lecturer (Mechanical Engineering) vacant for the petitioner.

Separate replies have been filed to the writ petition by the State of Rajasthan and the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. In both the replies, the petitioner’s contention that her name finds place as the most meritorious woman candidate in the reserve list, is not disputed. It is also not disputed that one of the five seats reserved for women candidates remained vacant as Miss Anupama did not join the post. Reference is given in the reply filed by the State of Rajasthan as well as the Commission to Rule 25 of the Rajasthan Technical Education (Engineering) Service Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2010) and it is contended that the reserve list remains operative for six months only. It is submitted on behalf of the Commission that as it did not receive any requisition by the Government for recommending any name from reserve list and since the period of six months expired on 30.6.2014, the reserve list expired and thereafter the petitioner has no right to be recommended for the post. By order dated 8.5.2015, this Court directed the learned A.G.C. to specifically apprise the Court regarding the length of joining time which was provided to all the candidates selected in the main list. An additional affidavit has been filed in reply to the said query. It is stated in the additional affidavit that the recommendation of the names of candidates selected in the main list dated 1.1.2014 was received by the State from the Rajasthan Public Service Commission on 8.1.2014. It is further stated in para no. 4 of the additional affidavit that as per the circular issued by the Department of Personnel dated 19.7.2011 the select list forwarded by the RPSC has to be operated within six months from the date of recommendation. The department, upon receiving the select list, after character verification, police verification and document verification, issued app