[2025:RJ-JP:8043] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8909/2012 Dheeraj Sharma S/o Shri Sunil Kumar Sharma, Village And Post Laharwara, Via- Kanwat, Tehsil-Sri Madhopur, Dist-Sikar Presetnly R/o-P.no.22, Tirupati Nagar, Muralipura, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through, Department Of Panchayati Raj Through Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Rajasthan Primary Education Council Through Its Commissioner, Having Office At Dr. Radhakrishnan Shiksha Sankul Compound, Jln Marg, Jaipur. 3. Member Secretary, Rehabilitation Council Of India, B-22, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi. 4. Member Secretary, National Council For Teacher Education, Hans Bhawan, Wing-2, 1 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. 5. Chief Executive Officer, Jila Parishad, Sikar. 6. Chief Executive Officer, Jila Parishad, Jhunjhunu. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raghunandan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sara Parveen for Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 18/02/2025 1. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have submitted that the present petition is filed assailing an/a advertisement/selection/recruitment process initiated in the year 2012 wherein the petitioner(s) has/have applied for the post of Teacher Gr. 3rd. 2. Subsequently, it is apprised that ever since issuance of the said advertisement/recruitment process much water has flown and as on date the impugned selection process is already over with all its consequential appointments being granted/made. Nevertheless, a subsequent fresh advertisement/selection process was also initiated and culminated. Thence, it can be deduced that as on date, no vacant seats/posts are available. [2025:RJ-JP:8043] (2 of 2) [CW-8909/2012] 3. Lastly, it is apprised that the present lis/identical lis is no more res integra and is already adjudicated vide judgment dated 13.02.2025 passed in SBCWP No. 2706/2000 titled as Om Prakash Ghiya Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Therefore, the said ratio can be made applicable to the present petition also. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner(s) is unable to refute the aforementioned contentions or substantiate the availability of seats/ survival of the lis in hand. 5. In pursuance of the contentions noted insofar, this Court deems it apposite to place reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in State of Orissa & Anr. v. Raj Kishore Nanda & Ors. reported in (2010) 6 SCC 777, Girdhar Kumar Dadhich Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2009) 2 SCC 706, Union of India v. B. Valluvan reported in (2006) 8 SCC 686 and Raj Rishi Mehra & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2013) 12 SCC 243, and 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, whereby it is made unambiguous that qua the selection process for any public service examination, the waiting/reserved list lapses after a span of six months from the date of its issuance, and if appointments are already made, then no judicial interference can be made at a belated stage. 6. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed in light of ratio passed in Om Prakash Ghiya (supra) which shall be treated as a part and parcel of the present judgment. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J Pooja /148