The State is estopped from taking steps for desanctioning the remaining unfilled posts on which the petitioners are selected and in claiming that they have forfeited their right to the posts.

JUDGMENT

Veerendr Singh Siradhana, J —Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application stands resolved in view of the adjudication made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, at Principal Bench, Jodhpur, in a batch of writ applications lead case being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.144/2015: Babu Lal Meena & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 1st September, 2015, after according an opportunity of hearing to the counsel for the State-respondents, observing thus:

"17. The fact regarding the petitioners' selection as L.D.Cs. in the recruitment process initiated in the year 2013 is not disputed. It is also an admitted case of the parties that just a few days after issuance of the advertisement for direct recruitment of L.D.Cs., the Government issued another advertisement for direct recruitment in subordinate services including the posts of Accounts Assistants which carry a higher pay scale than a L.D.C. The petitioners were holding the requisite qualifications for appointment on both the posts and thus, applied at both the places. The Government realized the possibility of complications arising because of the overlapping selections and thus, consciously issued the letter dated 28.6.2013 whereby, the candidates selected as L.D.Cs. were given permission to apply for extension of joining time till the issuance of the appointment orders in the recruitment process for subordinate services. The authorities concerned, upon receiving such applications, were directed to ensure that the joining time is extended. The language of the letter carries an unexceptional direction to the concerned officer to extend the joining time of the applicant. The petitioners thus were absolutely justified in entertaining a genuine belief in their minds that upon the application for extension of joining time being submitted, they would be allowed such extension and they could join on the post of L.D.C. in case of nonselection in the subsequent recruitment process. It is further the undisputed case of the parties that the applications submitted by the petitioners have not been rejected by the concerned authorities till date.

The selection process for subordinate services is still facing a road block of litigation. The result has not been declared and no appointment orders have been issued. As per the letter dated 17.8.2015 placed on record by Mr.Panwar, numerous candidates viz. Sudarshan Shandilya, Prakash Garasiya, Vishal Kumar Vyas, etc. were given extension of joining time in reference to the letter dated 28.6.2013.

In the file of SB Civil Writ Petition No.9556/2014, the petitioners have placed on record a copy of the order dated 11.7.2013 whereby, the concerned B.D.O. has allowed deferment of joining to Ms.Anita Vijayvargiya, Mr.Surendra Kumar Vijayvargiya and Ms.Dimple Soni.

18. Learned AAG Mr.Panwar tried to stress upon the fact that the petitioners have breached the mandatory condition of the appointment order in as much as, they did not join on their post by the last date mentioned therein. As per him, since the appointment orders were issued subsequent to issuance of the letter dated 28.6.2013, the terms and conditions of the appointment order would supersede the above letter and consequently, such persons who did not join the post by the last date mentioned in the appointment order, would be deemed to have forfeited their right of appointment.

The appointment orders which were issued to the petitioners required them to join on different dates in the month of July, 2015. It was stipulated that in case, the candidates concerned failed to join the post by the last date mentioned in the order, his/her appointment would stand cancelled.

This argument on the face of it is fallacious. The joining time could undoubtedly be stipulated with the issuance of the appointment orders and not prior thereto. Thus, before the appointment orders were issued, there was no occasion for th