IMPORTANT POINT
Candidates have a right to be considered for appointment but no vested right to receive an appointment from a select list.

ORDER :

(Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.) :

The present batch of writ petitions is based on similar and identical facts, therefore, the same are being heard and disposed of by this common order.

2. For proper adjudication of the controversy, facts of S.B. Civil Writ petition No.14640/2022 (Gurmeet Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) are taken into consideration.

3. The petitioner in the present writ petition has made a prayer that waiting list/second list/reserve list for the total 10029 posts of Lower Division Clerk (hereinafter referred to as ‘LDC’) in pursuance of the advertisement issued in the year 2013 should be published and the case of the petitioner may be considered for appointment on the post of LDC.

4. Briefly noted the facts in the writ petition are that in the year 2013, the respondent-State advertised the vacancies for appointment on the post of LDC. The petitioner being eligible in all respects applied for the post of LDC by filing an appropriate application. While the process for selection was in-currency, certain writ petitions were filed before this Court with respect to grant of bonus marks. In those writ petitions, the matter went up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed of all the Special Leave Petitions with a direction that the State Government may grant 15 bonus marks against service experience. While the petitioner was getting attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, number of writ petitions were filed before this Court and necessary directions from time to time in those writ petitions were given. One of the direction in the case of Arjun Ram Nain vs. State (Panchayati Raj Dep) Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3752/2017) was given, wherein the State was directed to produce the minutes of the meeting for preparing the list of selected candidates, revised the select list of LDC and if in the process of such revision the candidates come in the merit list, they were directed to be given appointment and the selected candidates were directed to join the place of posting by 15.07.2017. In the similar fashion, other directions were issued and in compliance thereof, the State Government complying the directions given in the cases granted appointments to the eligible candidates.

5. This Court, after taking into consideration the directions issued from time to time, also passed various directions by passing various orders and the State Government in compliance thereof held the meetings and the minutes of the same were produced before this Court. On certain occasions, when the State failed to comply with the directions issued by this Court, suo-moto cognizance for contempt was also taken against such officers for not implementing the orders in time. Mainly, the dispute was revolving around number of vacancies advertised, number of vacancies filled in by the State Government and balance of vacancies available with the respondent Department to be filled in by the candidates who have applied for the post of LDC in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the respondents in the year 2013. This Court ultimately vide order dated 25.07.2024 directed the State Government to file an additional affidavit clearly reflecting the number of posts advertised, the number of posts filled in by the State Government and the number of vacancies available at present to be filled in from the vacant posts advertised by the State Government in the year 2013. Pursuant to the order dated 25.07.2024, the State Government has filed a detailed additional affidavit before this Court. Since the candidature of the petitioner was not considered despite the vacancies being available with the respondent Department, therefore, the present writ petition has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that although the petitioners are having all the requisite qualifications for appointment on the post of LDC, the candidature of the petitioners is not being considered despite the directions having been issued b