Waiting lists do not confer vested rights for appointment, and recruitment processes can lapse with new selections, as confirmed by the court.

Judgment :

1. The instant writ petitions, which raise a common question of law, are hereby heard together and are being decided by this common order, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. This approach is being adopted in the interest of judicial efficiency and to prevent multiplicity of litigation, as the petitions involve identical legal issues.

2. The lead matter in the instant case with the consent of parties is taken as SB Civil Writ Petition No.566/2021 (Bharat Rathore & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.). It is hereby made clear that the ratio passed therein shall be made mutatis mutandis applicable to all the connected petitions.

3. The present writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

“i) The impugned actions of the respondents of not picking up further 193 candidates from the revised waiting list dated 16.07.2018 against ineligible candidates and non-joiners against the available vacancies of the advertisement dated 26.07.2013 may kindly be declared illegal and arbitrary and therefore, same may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice.

ii) the respondents may kindly be directed by issuing of writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the respondents may kindly be directed to:-

a) operate the revised waiting list dated 16.07.2018 against all the non-joiners and ineligible candidates of the advertisement dated 26.07.2013;

b) give appointment to humble Petitioners on the post of Clerk Grade - II with all the consequential benefits."

4. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

4.1 That an advertisement dated 26.07.2013 was issued by the respondent- Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) inviting applications for the post of Clerk Grade - II, by which 33 posts for RPSC and 7538 posts for Rajasthan Subordinate Offices were advertised. Subsequently, by the corrigendum dated 04.07.2017, 195 posts for the office of secretariat services were also included and seats qua RPSC were enhanced from 33 to 40.

4.2. Thereafter, examination was conducted, and results were declared. Moreover, on the same day, i.e., 07.07.2017, waiting list results were also declared wherein, petitioners were selected however, the same was provisional.

4.3. The controversy arose when the advertisement for the next recruitment was published on 16.04.2018. It was noted that the said advertisement did not contain any vacancy of the earlier advertisement, and after the recommendation, the appointing authorities started calling requisition names from the waiting list against the non-joiners and ineligible candidates.

5. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that by the requisition letter dated 05.07.2018, respondents sought names of candidates from the waiting list and in pursuance to same, RPSC declared the reshuffle result on13.07.2018 and revised waiting list on 16.07.2018.

6. It was further submitted that despite being selected in the revised waiting list in the appropriate category, the respondents did not include the name of petitioners in the first pick up list declared on 18.07.2018 from the waiting list dated 16.07.2018.

7. Further, it was submitted that vide various letters respondents have admitted the fact that from the overall list of 1197 non-joiner/ineligible candidates, 917 eligible candidates were selected by the RPSC, and out of 917 candidates also some of were declared ineligible after the document verification process.

8. Furthermore, it was submitted that the Circular dated 26.04.2018 issued by the department, resultant to which waiting list of the previous selection process of Clerk Grade II was lapsed on initiation of fresh recruitment process and next recruitment process were declared to be held on 12.08.2018, however the decision taken pursuant to the said circular