Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Om Prakash vs The Chief Protection Commi Anr … on 13 February, 2025
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2025:RJ-JP:7689]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13467/2010
Om Prakash Son Of Sh. Naurat Mal Bhat, Mewari Gate Near Sain
Ka Takiya, Beawar District Ajmer, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Chief Protection Commissioner, Railway Protection
Force, North Western Railway, Headquarter Off, Jaipur,
Raj
2. The Chair Person/ Incharge, Screening Committee,
Railway Protection Force Cost. Band North Western,
Jaipur, Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : None present
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Digvijay Singh for Mr.Ashish Kumar
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
13/02/2025
1. In compliance of the directions of the Court as encapsulated
in order dated 16.01.2025 passed in SBCWP No. 13880/2024,
registry has listed the bunch of matters pertaining to old/stale
recruitment/ selection process before the Court under Code 515.
2. When the present petition was listed on the erstwhile date
(in a bunch of petitions under Code 515, on the directions of the
Court) the counsel representing various party-petitioners with
associate and the advocates were granted liberty to put-forth their
contentions qua survival of the lis in hand, as the counsel
representing the respondents (AAGs, AGCs, Panel Counsel) have
apprised the Court that the impugned recruitment process is
already over alongwith consequential appointments being made,
moreover, in certain matters subsequent fresh recruitment(s)
is/are initiated and as on date, no vacant seats are available.
3. Today when the matter is up on board (after granting
reasonable time to the petitioners to apprise the Court with
availability of seats), it is submitted by the counsel representing
(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 11:19:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:7689] (2 of 4) [CW-13467/2010]
the respondents that the matter pertains to the recruitment qua
which an advertisement was issued in the year 2006 for the post
of Constable. It is further submitted that the impugned
selection/recruitment process is already over and as per the
contents of the circulars issued by the Government of Rajasthan,
Department of Personnel dated 19.07.2001 bearing No.
F.7(2)/DOP/A-2/81 Pt. and Øekad i-7 ¼2½ dkfeZd@d&2@81 ikVZ dated
13.01.2016 passed by jktLFkku ljdkj dkfeZd ¼d&2½ foHkkx, it can be
deduced that the reserved/waiting list qua the public recruitment
examinations, lapses after a period of six months. Therefore, the
lis in question does not survive.
4. In light of the foregoing facts and circumstances of the
instant matter, the contentions made by the learned counsel for
the respondents, this Court is of the view that with efflux of time
the lis in question does not survive. Additionally, reliance can be
placed upon the catena of judgments passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, a few of them are reproduced herein below:
4.1 State of Orissa & Anr. v. Raj Kishore Nanda & Ors.
reported in (2010) 6 SCC 777 :
“16. A select list cannot be treated as a
reservoir for the purpose of appointments,
that vacancy can be filled up taking the
names from that list as and when it is so
required. It is the settled legal proposition
that no relief can be granted to the candidate
if he approaches the court after the expiry of
the select list. If the selection process is
over, select list has expired and
appointments had been made, no relief
can be granted by the court at a belated
stage.”
(Emphasis laid)
4.2 Girdhar Kumar Dadhich Vs. State of Rajasthan reported
in (2009) 2 SCC 706:
“16. Furthermore, the select list would
ordinarily remain valid for one year. We
fail to understand on what basis
appointments were made in 2003 or
subsequently. Whether the validity of
the said select list was extended or not
is not known. Extension of select list
must be done in accordance with law.
(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 11:19:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:7689] (3 of 4) [CW-13467/2010]
Apart from a bald statement made in the list
of dates that the validity of the said select
list had been extended, no document in
support thereof has been placed before us.”
(Emphasis laid)
4.3 Union of India v. B. Valluvan reported in (2006) 8 SCC
686:
“17. The life of a panel ordinarily is one year.
The same can be extended only by the State
and that too if the statutory rule permits it to
do so. The High Court ordinarily would not
extend the life of a panel. Once a panel
stands exhausted upon filling up of all the
posts, the question of enforcing a future
panel would not arise. It was for the State to
accept the said recommendations of the
Selection Committee or reject the same. As
has been noticed hereinbefore, all
notified vacancies as also the vacancy
which arose in 2000 had also been filled
up. As the future vacancy had already
been filled up in the year 2000, the
question of referring back to the panel
prepared in the year 1999 did not arise.
The impugned judgment, therefore,
cannot be sustained.”
(Emphasis laid)
4.4 Raj Rishi Mehra & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.
reported in (2013) 12 SCC 243:
“15. The question whether the candidates
whose names are included in the waiting list
are entitled to be appointed against the
unfilled posts as of right is no longer res
integra and must be answered in negative in
view of the judgments of this Court in Union
of India v. Ishwar Singh Khatri; 1992 Supp
(3) SCC 84, Gujarat State Dy. Executive
Engineers’ Assn. v. State of Gujarat; 1994
Supp (2) SCC 591, State of Bihar v.
Secretariat Asstt. Successful Examinees
Union 1986; (1994) 1 SCC 126, Prem Singh
v. Haryana SEB; (1996) 4 SCC 319, Ashok
Kumar v. Banking Service Recruitment
Board; (1996) 1 SCC 283, Surinder Singh v.
State of Punjab; (1997) 8 SCC 488, Madan
Lal v. State of J&K; (1995) 3 SCC 486,
Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar
Gupta; (1998) 3 SCC 45, State of J&K v.
Sanjeev Kumar; (2005) 4 SCC 148, State of
(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 11:19:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:7689] (4 of 4) [CW-13467/2010]
U.P. v. Rajkumar Sharma; (2006) 3 SCC
148, Ram Avtar Patwari V. State of Haryana;
(2007) 10 SCC 94 and Rakhi Ray v. High
Court of Delhi; (2010) 2 SCC 637.”
5. In view of the aforementioned, and taking note of the
fact that ever since issuance of the impugned advertisement,
much water has flown and consequential appointments are
already made; that vide the afore-stated circulars, which are not
assailed till date, it is unambiguous that the said waiting/reserve
list shall lapse, thence, the present petition is dismissed as
rendered infructuous.
6. However, the petitioner(s) will be at liberty to take
appropriate legal recourse, if the facts are otherwise. Stay
application and/or any other applications, if pending, shall stand
disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Preeti Asopa /412
(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 11:19:43 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
