JUDGMENT :

1. In the present batch of writ petitions, the scope of the controversy involved pertains to the inaction on part of the respondents in not operating the waiting list for the examination of School Lecturer-2018. Therefore, considering the fact that the writ petitions warrant adjudication on common questions of law, with the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the parties, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17297/2022 titled as Santosh Charan vs State of Rajasthan, is being taken up as the lead case. It is cautiously clarified that any discrepancies in the present batch of writ petitions, pertain purely to the factual narratives contained therein and not viz-a-viz the question(s) of law to be determined by this Court.

2. At the outset, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners herein are those candidates, who are placed next in order of merit, after the selected candidates for the examination of School Lecturer-2018. However, on account of the pendency of S.B. CWP No. 4777/2021 titled as Surjan Lal Dhawan vs. State of Rajasthan, wherein a challenge was raised qua the correctness and/or validity of the impugned revised answer keys for various subjects, an interim order was passed by this Court to not operate the waiting list for the subjects concerned. Being aggrieved of the inaction on part of the respondent-RPSC, the petitioners have preferred the instant batch of writ petitions.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Tanveer Ahamad, has submitted that it is a settled position of law that selection qua the advertised posts, is only amongst the available and eligible candidates. It is only when on account of unforeseen circumstances such as that of inadequate document verification resulting in establishment of the fact that a candidates inclusion in the select list was not proper, the candidates who are next in order of merit, are required to be offered appointment. Similarly, even under circumstances where the candidates who are otherwise eligible but did not present themselves for joining, the appointment of such candidates was liable to be cancelled and those candidates who were next in the order of merit, were required to be offered appointment.

4. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in S.B. CWP No. 1781/2015 titled as Ravindra Purohit vs. State of Rajasthan, wherein it was held that:

“Aside of the aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that in terms of the State Government’s circular dated 19.07.200, it was incumbent upon the State Government to push up those in the waiting list during the period of its currency in the event of those in the select list being offered appointment not joining. The reason lies in the fact that by making an offer of appointment to those in the select list, the State Government had taken a conscious decision to make appointments to the number of posts advertised and there was no subsequent contra decision not to fill up posts rendered vacant by the non-joining of those in the select list. The State Government failed to act in terms of its own circular dated 19.07.2001and acted arbitrarily in not operating the waiting list despite vacancies obtaining.”

5. Learned counsel further argued that it is also a settled position of law that the life of the waiting list should start only after the last candidate who has been offered appointment does not join or fails to join timely and the life of the waiting list should not be allowed to commence prior to the said non-joining of selected candidate(s). In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court as rendered in S.B. CWP No. 3569/2015 titled as Pushpendra Agarwal vs. State of Rajasthan, wherein it was held as under:

“There is also merit in the contention that waiting list shall operate from the date when the selected candidates had not joined. Therefore, the period of six months to g