Rajasthan HC Upholds State's Discretion to Reduce Vacancies in 12-Year-Old Recruitment, Citing Binding Precedent and No Indefeasible Right to Appointment for Candidates - 2025-09-18

Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Petitions Challenging Reduction in LDC Vacancies, Declares 12-Year Recruitment Saga Closed

Jaipur, Rajasthan – The Rajasthan High Court, in a significant judgment, has dismissed a large batch of over 240 writ petitions filed by candidates of the 2013 Lower Division Clerk (LDC) recruitment drive. The court upheld the State's decision to limit appointments to available vacancies following a cadre restructuring, effectively bringing a 12-year-long, litigation-ridden recruitment process to a definitive close.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sameer Jain, presiding over the single-judge bench, ruled that the matter was no longer res integra (an undecided issue), as a Division Bench had already settled the controversy in the case of Hari Om Meena v. State of Rajasthan .

---

Background of the Decade-Long Dispute

The case originates from a 2013 advertisement by the Panchayati Raj Department for approximately 19,275 LDC posts. The process was mired in litigation almost immediately, primarily over the award of bonus marks, which stalled appointments for years as the matter travelled to the Supreme Court.

After the legal hurdles were cleared, appointments were made in phases. However, the State government undertook a "cadre restructuring" exercise, which rationalized the number of sanctioned LDC posts to 12,911. Consequently, in 2022, the government issued a communication to fill only around 4,000 remaining vacant posts, a stark reduction from the originally advertised number. Aggrieved candidates, who were on the select/waiting list, approached the High Court, arguing this move was arbitrary and an illegal change to the "rules of the game" mid-process.

---

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Stance:

The candidates' counsel argued forcefully that once the recruitment process for 19,275 posts had commenced, the State could not unilaterally reduce the number of vacancies. They contended that this action was arbitrary, violated the principles of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and amounted to a "pick and choose" policy. They placed heavy reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court , which held that the "rules of the game" cannot be altered after the selection process has started.

State's Defence:

Conversely, the State of Rajasthan argued that the recruitment advertisement explicitly reserved the right to increase or decrease the number of posts based on administrative exigencies. The government's counsel submitted that mere inclusion in a select list does not grant a candidate an indefeasible or vested right to appointment, citing the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India . The State's primary defence was that the issue was already settled by a Division Bench in Hari Om Meena , which had declared that the 2013 recruitment process had reached its terminus and could not continue indefinitely.

---

Court's Rationale and Key Precedents

Justice Sameer Jain's judgment meticulously dismantled the petitioners' claims, anchoring the decision in established legal principles and judicial discipline.

1. Binding Precedent of Hari Om Meena

The court found that the central controversy had been "comprehensively adjudicated" by the Division Bench in Hari Om Meena . That judgment had already examined the sanctioned strength, filled posts, and remaining vacancies, and concluded that the prolonged recruitment process must end. Justice Jain noted:

"The said pronouncement, having attained finality... operates as a binding precedent upon all coordinate and subordinate Benches in view of the well-established doctrine of stare decisis ... the controversy is no longer res integra and stands foreclosed by authoritative judicial determination."

2. No Indefeasible Right to Appointment

Reaffirming a cornerstone of service jurisprudence, the court reiterated that a candidate's name on a select list only confers a right to be considered for appointment, not a guaranteed post. Citing Shankarsan Dash , the judgment stated:

"...mere selection does not guarantee appointment, and the employer is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies, provided its decision is not vitiated by arbitrariness."

3. "Rules of the Game" Not Altered

The court distinguished the facts from the Tej Prakash Pathak case, clarifying that the "rules of the game" principle applies to eligibility criteria and the selection method, not necessarily to the number of vacancies, especially when the advertisement itself permits variation.

---

Final Verdict and a Parting Note on Endless Litigation

In dismissing the entire batch of petitions, the court held that the State's actions were neither arbitrary nor mala fide, as they were in compliance with the binding directions of the Division Bench.

In a "Parting Note," Justice Jain expressed concern over the "unending streams of litigation" stemming from a single recruitment process, which consumed valuable judicial time for over a decade. The court emphasized the public interest in finality and stability, stating:

"The settled field cannot be unsettled merely on account of repetitive challenges... Intervention by this Court... would transgress the limits of review and convert the Court into a super-manager of the service cadre, a role which the constitutional scheme does not envisage."

The judgment brings a decisive end to the hopes of thousands of candidates awaiting appointment from the 2013 LDC recruitment drive, reinforcing the principle that recruitment processes cannot remain open-ended indefinitely.