Order on Board

1. This writ petition has been filed seeking for the following reliefs:

“10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/direction and quash the order dated26.03.2018 (Annexure P-1); and

10.2. The Hon'ble Court may kindly direct the respondent to consider the petitioner for appointment against the vacant post of Peon.

10.3. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also be awarded to the Petitioner including the cost of the petition.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 published an advertisement dated 22.9.2016 inviting applications from aspiring candidates for appointment on various posts including Peon. The petitioner, who belongs to Other Backward Classes Category, made an application in lieu of the advertisement. After completion of the recruitment process, a select list was published by the respondents in which the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.1 in the waiting list of Other Backward Classes Category and at Sl.No.4 in the waiting list of Unreserved Category. She further submits that the selected candidate at Sl.No.2 Naresh Kumar Gangber did not join the post and thus a person from Sl.No.1 in the waiting list was given appointment who also resigned after joining and the person at Sl.No.2 in the waiting list was given the joining. He also resigned and the person at Sl.No.3 was working at some different place has not joined was not given any appointment and thus as all the above three candidates have not joined on the post which fell vacant on account of resignation of Shri Naresh Kumar Gangber of Sl.No.2, the respondents ought to have given appointment to the petitioner as he stood at Sl.No.4 in the waiting list. As soon as the petitioner came to know that the post is lying vacant, he made a representation to respondent No.1 which has been rejected on the ground that the waiting list is valid for only one year. She further submits that admittedly the person who was initially appointed has resigned and did not join and later on two persons above at Sl.No.1 and 2 after joining resigned from the post and the person at Sl.No.3 has also not been given any appointment, the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered. She submits that simply because the waiting list has expired, it cannot curtail the right of the petitioner to be considered for appointment.

3. Opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents/State submits that the waiting list has already expired and the petitioner cannot be given appointment because the select list has also been acted upon by the respondents, as such the recruitment process in lieu of the advertisement has already come to an end. Even otherwise, this petition is filed in the year 2018 after about two years from the date of publication of the waiting list.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available with due care.

5. In the case of Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Association v. State of Gujarat and others, reported in 1994 Supp (2) SCC 591, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus:

“8. Coming to the next issue, the first question is what is a waiting list?; can it be treated as a source of recruitment from which candidates may be drawn as and when necessary?; and lastly how long can it operate? These are some important questions which do arise as a result of direction issued by the High Court. A waiting list prepared in service matters by the competent authority is a list of eligible and qualified candidates who in order of merit are placed below the last selected candidate. How it should operate and what is its nature may be governed by the rules. Usually it is linked with the selection or examination for which it is prepared. For instance, if an examination is held say for selecting 10 candidates for 1990 and the competent authority prepares a waiting list then