Merely being included in a select list does not provide an indefeasible right to appointment; the State can regulate vacancies as per policy needs, provided there is no arbitrariness.

Judgment :

SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. In the present batch of writ petitions, the controversy which engages the attention of this Court, albeit multifaceted, is predominantly circumscribed by the challenge directed against the impugned letter dated 07.09.2022, issued by the respondent– authorities in connection with the recruitment process for the post of Lower Division Clerk (hereinafter referred to as ‘LDC’), 2013. It is alleged that by virtue of the aforesaid letter, the respondents restricted appointments to merely 4000 posts, notwithstanding the availability of approximately 19,000 vacancies under the said recruitment exercise. Inasmuch as the issues raised in all these writ petitions rest substantially upon common questions of law and fact, this Court, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, has considered it appropriate to take up S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18145/2024 titled Ramesh Chand Saini and Another v. State of Rajasthan and Others , as the lead matter for adjudication and factual reference. It is, however, deemed apposite to clarify that any divergence in the factual averments or narrative details contained in the respective petitions forming part of this batch shall not affect or dilute the adjudication of the legal issues which fall for determination. The present judgment shall, therefore, govern and apply to all connected writ petitions on a mutatis mutandis basis, save and except to the extent of such factual distinctions as may bear no material relevance to the core questions of law addressed herein.

2. For the sake of clarity and completeness, the reliefs/prayers as sought by the petitioners in the lead petition are reproduced hereinbelow in extenso:

“i) The Hon’ble Court may kindly be directed to respondents to fill-up the total advertised posts as per the judgment dated 07.04.2017 Arjun Ram Nain (supra);

ii) Further may kindly be directed to respondents issue the calendar for remaining vacant posts for the LDCs i.e. for than 6000 posts under LDC recruitment, 2013 and as per the selection criteria may be accorded appointment to the petitioners on the post of LDC with all consequential benefits;

iii) Any other appropriate order, or direction which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in favour of the appellant may also kindly be passed.”

FACTUAL NARRATIVE:

3. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be apposite to briefly recapitulate the material facts (as available on the date of inception of the present petition) necessary for determination of the lis, which are set out hereinbelow as:

3.1 That the respondents issued an advertisement issued on or around 14.02.2013, inviting applications for recruitment to the post of LDCs in various Zila Parishads across the State of Rajasthan, including Zila Parishad, Dausa and Zila Parishad, Karauli.

3.2 That the petitioner, being duly qualified inasmuch as that he possessed the educational qualification of Senior Secondary and also held the requisite computer proficiency certification as prescribed under the relevant recruitment rules, duly submitted their application pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement.

3.3 That apart from the prescribed qualification, the petitioner also possessed prior experience, having served in the capacity of Consultant (Animal Husbandry) under the Watershed Development Scheme on a contractual basis, qua which an experience certificate had also been issued in his favour.

3.4 That a controversy arose with respect to the grant of bonus marks on account of experience, which came to be the subject matter of adjudication before this Court in Archana vs. the State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP No. 4144/2013. Vide order d