Point of Law: “While operating category-wise reserve list” would be applicable only to posts falling vacant on account of non-joining of appointed candidates.

JUDGMENT :

[Vijay Bishnoi, J.]

1. These letter patent appeals are filed by the appellants being aggrieved with the judgment dated 23.03.2022 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby writ petitions preferred by the petitioners have been dismissed.

2. The facts, not in dispute, are that the respondent – State issued advertisements/notifications dated 12.04.2018 and 31.07.2018 for recruitment of Teacher Grade-III (Level-I) and Teacher Grade III (Level-II) under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 1994’) and the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Rules of 1996’) for Non-TSP Area. Provisional select lists were issued and the selected candidates were called for document verification and appointments were offered to the eligible candidates. Despite the said exercise, large number of vacancies remained unfilled even after operating the reserve list. The said vacancies remained unfilled on account of non-joining of various selected candidates, candidates who were found ineligible and the candidates, who did not appear for the document verification.

3. Though the large number of vacancies remained unfilled, the State Government took a decision not to fill up those vacancies. Being aggrieved with the decision of the State Government of not filling the unfilled vacancies advertised through advertisements/ notifications dated 12.04.2018 and 31.07.2018, a batch of writ petitions, led by Kuldeep Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., SBCWP No.2094/2019, was filed in relation to Teacher Grade-III (Level-II), whereas another batch of writ petitions, led by Lokendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., SBCWP No.1184/2020, was in relation to Teacher Grade-III (Level-I). Writ petitions of Kuldeep Kumar and others (supra) were allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 20.07.2020, whereas the writ petitions filed by Lokendra Singh and others (supra) were decided on 17.08.2020.

4. While allowing those writ petitions, the learned Single Judge directed the respondent -State of Rajasthan to fill remaining posts of each subject while operating category-wise reserve list. It has also been directed by the learned Single Judge that those candidates, who have already joined, pursuant to the advertisement in question and those who have not turned up either for document verification or for joining be ignored.

5. The State Government chose not to challenge the order dated 20.07.2020 and 17.08.2020 passed in Kuldeep Kumar’s and Lokendra Singh’s case (supra) and decided to implement the directions given by the Court. In relation to that, the State Government issued select lists on 29.12.2020 for Teacher Grade-III (Level-I) and on 11.01.2021 for Teacher Grade-III (Level-II). Being aggrieved with the same, the appellants herein preferred writ petitions on the ground that the select lists issued by the State Government on 29.12.2020 and 11.01.2021 are violative of provisions of Rule 277 A (vi) of the Rules of 1996.

6. It was contended that without reshuffling of the candidates offering appointments category-wise is ex facie contrary to law. It was also contended that law with regard to recruitment and operating of the list is well settled and against the vacancies identified for open category, everyone can compete irrespective of their category and meritorious candidates are required to be first selected under the open category, but with the issuance of select lists by the State Government on 29.12.2020 and 11.01.2021, the persons belonging to the reserved category, though possessing more or identical marks than the cut-off fixed for the open category candidates, have been placed in their category only.

7. During the course of arguments in the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, the learned Single Judge, who delivered the judgment in case of Kuldeep Kumar (supra), concluded that the order passed in Kuldeep Kumar’s case (supra) is required a review/reconsideration and