[2025:RJ-JP:6818] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4149/2003 Satya Narain Mehar S/o Shri Ghasi Lal, aged about 21 years, R/o Tamoli Mohalla, Jeetmalji Kothari, Kachowk, Jhalawar ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Home Department, Jaipur 2. Inspector General of Police (Head Quarters) Rajasthan, Jaipur 3. District Superintendent of Police, Jhalawar 4. Ratan Lal Meghwal S/o Shri Mangi Lal Meghwal, C/o Superin- tendent of Police Distt. Jhalawar ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Sharma for Mr. S.D. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 13/02/2025 1. In compliance of the directions of the Court as encap- sulated 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 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 [2025:RJ-JP:6818] (2 of 5) [CW-4149/2003] recruitment process is already over alongwith consequential ap- pointments 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 rea- sonable time to the petitioners to apprise the Court with availabil- ity of seats), it is submitted by the counsel representing the re- spondents that the matter pertains to the recruitment qua which an advertisement was issued in the year 2003 for the post of Con- stable. It is further submitted that the impugned selection/recruit- ment process is already over and as per the contents of the circu- lars issued by the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Per- sonnel 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 jk- tLFkku ljdkj dkfeZd ¼d&2½ foHkkx, it can be deduced that the re- served/waiting list qua the public recruitment examinations, lapses after a period of six months. Therefore, the lis in question does not survive. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is neither able to refute the aforementioned contentions, nor has moved any ap- plication(s) supported by evidences, to substantiate the availabil- ity of seats/ survival of the lis in hand. 5. In light of the foregoing facts and circumstances of the in- stant matter, the contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that with efflux of time the lis in question does not survive. Additionally, reliance can be placed [2025:RJ-JP:6818] (3 of 5) [CW-4149/2003] upon the catena of judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a few of them are reproduced herein below: 5.1 State of Orissa & Anr. v. Raj Kishore Nanda & Ors. re- ported 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 re- quired. 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 ap- pointments had been made, no relief can be granted by the court at a belated stage." (Emphasis laid) 5.2 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 ap- pointments were made in 2003 or sub- sequently. 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. 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) 5.3 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 Se- [2025:RJ-JP:6818] (4 of 5) [CW-4149/2003] lection Committee or reject the same. As has been noticed hereinbefore, all noti- fied 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 im- pugned judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained." (Emphasis laid) 5.4 Raj Rishi Mehra & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. re- ported 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 un- filled 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 U.P. v. Rajkumar Sharma; (2006) 3 SCC 148, Ram Avtar Pat- wari V. State of Haryana; (2007) 10 SCC 94 and Rakhi Ray v. High Court of Delhi; (2010) 2 SCC 637.” 6. 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 al- ready made; that vide the afore-stated circulars, which are not as- sailed till date, it is unambiguous that the said waiting/reserve list [2025:RJ-JP:6818] (5 of 5) [CW-4149/2003] shall lapse, thence, the present petition is dismissed as rendered infructuous. 7. However, the petitioner(s) will be at liberty to take ap- propriate legal recourse, if their grievance still survives. Stay ap- plication and/or any other applications, if pending, shall stand dis- posed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J ANIL SHARMA /76