The reserve list for appointments has a limited validity of six months from the date of the original list forwarded by the commission to the appointing authority, and vacancies cannot be filled beyond the time provided by the statute.

JUDGMENT

1. This intra court appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved by the order dated 11.05.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 10573/2010 and order dated 01.11.2019 passed in Review Petition (Writ) No. 158/2018 by the learned Single Bench. By the aforesaid orders, appellant's prayer for appointment on the post of Jr. Engineer (Civil) (Diploma) was rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the RPSC issued a notification dated 08.10.2007 inviting applications for 85 vacant posts of Jr. Engineer (Civil) (Diploma). The selection process was to be held in conformity with the Rajasthan Rural Development and Panchayati Raj State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1998. On completion of selection process, a select panel was prepared. The appellant belongs to general category and he was placed at Serial No. 1 in the reserve list. Out of 85 advertised posts, 32 posts were required to be filled by general category candidates. Two candidates namely Rajkumar Rajoriya and Kumari Brijrani placed at serial No. 7 and 13 respectively were offered appointment however they did not join. Counsel further submitted that the appellant was placed at serial No. 1 in the reserve list, therefore, by operating the reserve list the offer of appointment should have been made to the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that all 85 candidates recommended by RPSC were issued appointment orders. Therefore, no posts remained vacant. It was further submitted that the reserve list as per the Rules, 1998 can be operated up to six months from the date of original recommendations. The original recommendations were forwarded by the Commission to the department on 29.01.2010. So, the reserve list was in operation only till 28.07.2010. It was further submitted that no candidate lower in order of merit than the appellant was accorded appointment. The non-joining of selected candidates does not entitle the appellant to a right to seek appointment in pursuance of a select list which has lapsed.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. Rule 24 of the Rules, 1998 relied upon by the respondents is reproduced hereinbelow for reference:

"24. Recommendations of the Commission/Appointing Authority

(1) The Commission/Appointing Authority, as the case may be, shall prepare a list of candidates, whom they/it consider suitable for appointment to the post or posts concerned, arranged in order of merit and the Commission shall forward the list to the Appointing Authority.

(2) The Commission/Appointing Authority, as the case may be, may to the extent of 50% of the advertised vacancies, keep names of suitable candidates on the reserve list. The names of such candidates may, on requisition, be recommended in the order of merit to the Appointing Authority within six months from the date on which the original list is forwarded by the Commission to the Appointing Authority."

6. Perusal of the aforesaid rule clearly shows that the life of the reserve list shall be six months from the date on which original list is forwarded by the Commission to the appointing authority. As per the respondents, the original recommendations were made on 29.01.2010, resultantly, the reserve list was in operation till 28.07.2010 only. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. v. Harish Chandra & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 2173 that:

"This being the position and in view of the Statutory Rules contained in Rule 26 of the Recruitment Rules we really fail to understand how the High Court could issue the impugned direction to recruit the respondents who were included in the select list prepared on 4.4.87 and the list no longer survived after one year and the rights, if any, of persons included in the list did not subsist. In the course of hearing the learned counsel for the respondents, no doubt have pointed out some materials which indicate that the Administrative Authorities have made the appointments from a list beyon