Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The instant writ petition has been filed for seeking direction to the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan to re-determine vacancies of direct recruitment quota in the Cadre of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service (for Short, RHJS)and in case it is found to be more than eleven and petitioner is found entitled to appointment, his case be recommended to the Governor for appoint- ment to RHJS cadre.

(2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioners candidature was considered against eleven vacancies for the post of RHJS in pursuance of the Advertisement dated 21.12.96 under the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969. (for short, ``the Rules, 1969). The said eleven vacancies stood filled-up and petitioner could not succeed therein. Petitioners grievance is that vacancies of direct recruitment quota of RHJS had not been worked-out properly and if the same are re-determined, there is a possibility that the same would be more than eleven and if it is so, petitioner may get a chance to be recommended for appointment on the said post as he claims to be just below the last selected candidate in the merit list.

(3). In Gujrat State Deputy Executive Engineers Association vs. State of Gujrat & Ors. (1), the Honble Supreme Court quashed the appointments made over and above the vacancies advertised holding that such an action was neither permissible nor desirable for the reason that it would amount to ``improper exercise of power and only in a rare and exceptional circumstance and in emergent situation, this rule can be deviated from and it can be done only after adopting policy decision based on some rational as the authority cannot fill up more posts than advertised as a matter of course. This view has consistently been reiterated by the Apex Court as is evident from the following judgments.

(4). In Prem Singh &ors. vs. Haryana State Electricity Board & Ors. (2), the Apex Court observed as under:-

``The selection process by way of requisition and advertisement can be started from clear vacancies and also for anticipated vacancies but not for future vacancies. If the requisition and advertisement are for a certain number of posts only, the State cannot make more appointments than the number of posts advertised .........The State can deviate from the advertisement and make appointments on the posts falling vacant thereafter in exceptional circumstances only or in an emergent situation and that too by taking a policy decision in that behalf.

(5). In Union of India and others vs. Ishwar Singh Khatri and others (3) the Court held that selected candidates have right to appointment only against ``vacancies notified and that too during the life of the select list as the panel of selected candidates cannot be valid for indefinite period. Moreover, impaneled candidates ``in any event cannot have a right against future vacancies In State of Bihar & ors. vs. The Secretariat, Assistant S.E. Union 1986 and others (4), the Apex Court held that ``a person who is selected does not, on account of being impanelled alone, acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. Empanelment is at the best a condition of eligibility for purposes of appointment, and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed unless relevant service rules says to the contrary. In the said case as the selection process was completed in five years after the publication of the advertisement, the contention was raised that the empanelled candidates deserved to be appointed over and above the vacancies notified. The Honble Supreme Court rejected the contention by observing that call- ousness of Competent Authority in not completing the selection process and issuing any fresh advertisement in between, may not be justified but offering the posts in such a manner would adversely prejudice the cause of those candidates who achieved eligibility in the meantime.

(6). In Surinder Singh & ors. vs. State of Punjab & Or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document