ORDER :

1. The instant Special Appeal (Writ) has been preferred by the appellant petitioner Archana Ruhela challenging the order dated 02.03.2022 passed by learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17851/2021 whereby, the writ petition preferred by the appellant petitioner has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel Shri Choudhary representing the appellant petitioner urged that as one Mamta Meena, who was selected, did not join and her candidature was cancelled and as the petitioner was at serial No.1 in the reserve list, the respondents should have offered the said post to the petitioner but the respondents have issued fresh advertisement for the post of Assistant Professor (Physiology) which is absolutely unjustified.

3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel Shri Choudhary representing the appellant petitioner and, have gone through the impugned order dated 02.03.2022 and the record.

4. As per the pleadings of the writ petition, the advertisement had been issued on 16.07.2015. After conducting the recruitment process, the merit list/ reserve list has been issued on 09.02.2017. The candidature of Mamta Meena, whose post was claimed by the petitioner as being at No.1 in the reserve list, has been cancelled on 18.05.2020. It is not disputed that the reserve list was issued on 09.02.2017 and a period of more than three years has lapsed after the issuance thereof. It is settled that the validity of a waiting list/reserve list is only six months and as the said period has already passed, the recruitment authority cannot be directed to invite the candidates beyond the reserve list because the selection process has to be given a finality at some point of time. Under such circumstances, the respondent authorities have issued the fresh advertisement on 27.11.2021 which is absolutely justified and the petitioner cannot implore the recruiting authority to operate an expired waiting reserve list at this belated moment.

5. Controversy identical to the one at hand was examined by this Court in bunch of Special Appeal led by D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.87/2021 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Gajendra Upadhyay & Anr.), decided on 27.01.2022 wherein, its has been held:

“6. First and foremost, we may observe that the finding recorded in the order dated 09.01.2020 passed in Mohd. Aslam’s case regarding the recruitment process being contrary to the Rules of 2015, is totally unfounded. The learned Single Bench observed that since the respondents did not hold the written examination, Rule 26 could not be resorted to as the operation of the said Rule was only permissible if the selection process had been made as per Rule 25 of the Rules of 2015 which prescribe that the selection process must be undertaken on the basis of a written examination and as this procedure was not adhered to, Rule 26 would have no application. In this regard, learned counsel representing the appellants has drawn the Court’s attention to the notification dated 21.10.2016 issued by the State Government whereby, Rule 25 has been amended by adding the rider “if there is a provision of it in the rules” to the expression “written examination” and substituted the whole with the same. Similar substitution has been made in Rule 26 of the Rules of 2015. Acting in furtherance of the said amendment, the department issued an order dated 06.11.2017 wherein, it has been stipulated that the selection for the post of Teacher Grade III (Level-II) would be made on the basis of aggregate marks secured in RTET/REET and the marks secured in Graduation in the ratio of 70:30. Thus, there is no doubt in the mind of this Court that the selection process based on merit list prepared by proportionate aggregation of these marks, was compliant to the Rules of 2015. The finding recorded by the learned Single Bench that the list of 428 candidates issued by the respondents is not a final list and that the list of 215 candidates cannot also be termed to be