The waiting list for appointment to a post commences to operate only after the posts for which the recruitment was conducted have been completed and the validity of the waiting list is determined with reference to the date on which offers of appointment were issued to those emerging on the top of the merit list.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. - Brief facts which require to be noted for the purpose of ascertaining the issues involved and for deciding the same, are being noted.

2. An advertisement was issued by the RPSC on 05.08.1996 inviting applications for appointment on the post of Homeopathy Chikitsak. The selection process was completed and after the interviews were over, the select list was issued on 03.10.1997 wherein 27 candidates were placed in the main list which included respondent Nos.5 and 6 who were placed at Serial Nos.25 and 26 in the select list. One of them belonging to SC and other from ST category. Along with select list, a reserve list was also published on the same date which contains 14 names. Name of the petitioner-Dr. S.K. Joshi was placed at Serial No.1 in the waiting list while petitioner No.2 was placed at No.3. The select list was operated, however, the respondent Nos.5 and 6 did not join the services as direct recruitees. It has come on record that both the respondents had been earlier working as Junior Homeopathic Chikitsak and upon having been screened on promulgation of the Rules, were regularised on the post and were screened by the State Government vide its order dated 8th December, 1998. They were treated as regularly appointed on the post of Homeopathic Chikitsak from the date of initial appointment thus placed over and above those direct recruitees, who were selected through aforesaid advertisement.

3. The petitioners by way of this writ petition claim two aspects. Firstly, that the number of vacancies which were advertised were less than actual vacancies available for direct recruitment and therefore, the select list which was prepared was illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. The names of the petitioners ought to have been included in the main list as there were in all 33 posts available for direct recruitment for the post of Homeopathic Chikitsak. The petitioners have relied on the letter dated 23rd July, 1998.

4. Alternatively, the petitioners claim their consideration for appointment as they were placed in the reserve list and candidates of the main list have not joined. It is submitted that their names were wrongly mentioned as they were already in service and were regularised and confirmed on their post vide order dated 13th November, 1990 as Junior Homeopathic Chikitsak re-designated as Homeopathic Chikitsak after promulgation of Rules and were therefore required to be treated as on strength of service after promulgation of the Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy Service Rules, 1973 and, therefore, there was no occasion to have called them for interview and included their names in the select list at Serial Nos.25 and 26.

5. Learned counsel submits that there was no SC and ST candidate placed in the waiting list and as the respondent Nos.5 and 6 were not available for filling up SC and ST post, the same was required to be filled by normal course from the general candidates available in the reserve list and the petitioners being available, they should have been offered appointment on the post of Homeopathic Chikitsak.

6. The RPSC in its reply submitted that reserve list where names of the petitioners stood had expired on 15th April, 1998 as select list was sent for recommendation to the State Government on 16th October, 1997 and six months expired on 15th April, 1998, therefore, petitioners had no claim for operating the reserve list and therefore, as no name was called by the State Government from the reserve list, hence, the petitioners do not have any rightful claim for appointment.

7. Reply has also been filed by the State wherein it is stated that respondent Nos.5 and 6 have been selected by the RPSC although it admits that they were regularised. However, it is stated that there was no bar for the regularised Chikitsak to participate in the selection and therefore, there is no illegality in including the names of respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the select list. While it is not