[2025:RJ-JP:18342-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 421/2025 Brijesh Kumar Gautam S/o Shri Chiranji Lal, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village And Post-Mandawari, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa, Rajasthan. ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Zila Parishad Barmer, Through Its Chief Executive Officer. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. C.P. Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 01/05/2025 Aggrieved by dismissal of the writ Petition by an order dated 17th March 2025, the appellant who was an aspirant to the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-II) has filed this Special Appeal. 2. Briefly stated, pursuant to an advertisement issued in the year 2012 for appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-III, the appellant participated in the recruitment exercise but his name did not reflect in the select list. On receiving an information through RTI on 25th November 2013 that one successful candidate did not join the advertised post, the appellant moved a representation for his appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III. Constrained by the fact that his representation was not decided and he was not [2025:RJ-JP:18342-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-421/2025] offered appointment, the appellant approach the writ Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.283/2014. 3. The writ petition has been dismissed observing as under: “6. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, upon scanning of the records, taking note of the judgments cited at the Bar, this Court has made the following observations:- 6.1. That recruitment for the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-II) pertains to the Year 2012. 6.2. That vide order dated 21.02.2025, petitioner was granted opportunity to place on record relevant documents to substantiate the contentions, howsoever, no such documents are placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6.3. That judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are on distinct factual matrix as that of present petition. 6.4. That as on date, no seats are lying vacant qua the said post and fresh recruitment process is carried out. 7. Relying upon the dictum enunciated in the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Shankaran Dash Vs. Union of India reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 and State of Orissa and Anr. Vs. Raj Kishore Nanda and Ors. reported in (2010) 6 SCC 777,wherein, it is held that successful candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed and select list should not be treated as a reservoir for the purpose of appointments, moreover, if the selection process in respect of certain number of vacancies is over, it is not open to offer appointment to persons from the unexhausted select list.” 4. Mr. C.P. Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellant refers to the decisions of this Court including decisions in Jubair Bhati Vs. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur through Its Registrar General and Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17047/2022), Vivek Kumar Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in 2023 SCC Online Raj 2800 and [2025:RJ-JP:18342-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-421/2025] Purushottam Vs. Chairman MSEB & Anr., reported in (1999) 6 SCC 49 to lay support to this Special Appeal on the ground that the merit of the matter shall not extinguish merely because no interim order was passed by the Court. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that there is still one post vacant on which the appellant can be offered appointment but the writ Petition has been dismissed merely on the ground that a successful candidate does not acquire any indefeasible right. 5. Having regard to the issue raised by the appellant, we are not inclined to call upon the respondents to file their affidavit in the present proceeding. 6. The present Special Appeal does not require any detailed consideration inasmuch as the Court should not interfere in the matter after more than a decade when the advertisement seeking applications for the post of Teacher Grade-III was issued. The writ Court rightly referred to the decision of the Shankaran Dash Vs. Union of India reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 to observe that the select list should not be treated as a reservoir for the purpose of appointments. May be, there was no delay on the part of the appellant in approaching this Court, but then, we do not find any statement made by the appellant that he was prosecuting the matter diligently. Moreover, the appellant was not the selected candidate and his whole claim arises on the basis of one selected candidate not joining the post. Besides that, we find that the judgments cited by Mr. C.P. Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellant are quite distinguishable on facts. For example, “Jubair Bhati” was a candidate for the post of Civil Judge for which the advertisement was issued in 2021 and the judgment of this Court [2025:RJ-JP:18342-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-421/2025] has been delivered in 2024. On the judgments cited by Mr. C.P. Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellant, we would indicate that a judgment is an authority for what decides and nothing more. 7. In Ambica Quarry Works Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 213, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “18…………The ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. It has been said long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it…………” 8. Quite apparently, the judgments cited on behalf of the appellant does not lay down a law that in all such cases where no interim order was passed by the Court the candidate would have an indefeasible right to seek appointment even after a decade. 9. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 421/2025 is dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J (SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J RAJAT/30