[2025:RJ-JP:11838] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8311/2014 Mukul Gidwani S/o Mohan Lal Gidwani, aged 28 years, resident of Swami General Store, Kishangarh Road, Khertal, Distt. Alwar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Rajasthan Through Registrar General. 2. District And Session Judge, Alwar Authorised Officer Ldc Direct Recruitment Year 2013, Alwar Rajasthan 3. District And Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan Auithorised Officer Ldc Direct Recruitment Year 20, Jaipur Metro. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanmay Dhand For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rachit Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 17/03/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an advertisement dated 10.01.2013 was issued under the Rajasthan Subordinate Court Ministerial Staff Rules, 1986 and Rules of 1999 amended till 2013 by the respondents inviting applications for the post of LDC in District and Sessions Judge Court, Alwar. 2. It is further submitted that on 16.05.2013 respondent issued the final list of selected candidates, thereafter, petitioner appeared for document verification on 18.05.2013. 3. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner’s name was at Serial No. 2 in the waiting list initially, thereafter on account of [2025:RJ-JP:11838] (2 of 4) [CW-8311/2014] joining by the candidate who was at serial No.1 in the waiting list, the petitioners’ name is ought to be considered at Serial No.1 in the waiting list. 4. Furthermore, it is submitted that one of the candidate of General category has resigned from the said post, resultant to which vacancy arose qua one seat. Further, it is submitted that on account of the said fact petitioner has filed a representation for appointment on the said post on the ground that his name is at Serial No.1 in the waiting list. 5. Additionally, it is submitted that the respondents replied to the above said representation of the petitioner, mentioning therein that the vacancy at kishangarh Court has arose due to resignation, therefore the same is to be treated as a future vacancy and cannot be filled from the present panel/ waiting list. 6. Subsequently, it is submitted that there were approximately 130 seats at Jaipur which were to be filled up by the respondents for, which select list of 113 candidates was issued. In this regard it is submitted that on account of resignation by some of the candidates at Jaipur, vacancy arose for approximately 14 seats, which were to be filled up by utilizing the waiting list. Therefore, it is submitted that at Jaipur candidates are selected from the waiting list to fill the vacant seats that arose due to resignation, thus, respondents are treating the petitioner in a discriminatory manner by not considering him for the said post from the waiting list. 7. Lastly, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Calcutta High Court in W.P.C.T. No.159 of 2007 titled as The Lt. [2025:RJ-JP:11838] (3 of 4) [CW-8311/2014] Governor and others vs. M. Deepa and another, decided on 05.09.2007. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has raised objection to the above said contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that as on date no interim order is operational in favour of petitioner. It is further submitted that selection process qua the said post is concluded and no seats are lying vacant as on date. Further, it is submitted that fresh recruitment for the said post are carried out. 9. Furthermore, it is submitted that the petitioner name was at serial No. 2 in the waiting list and in the instant case vacancy has arose due to resignation, thus, on account of resignation future vacancies are created and petitioner has no right on such future vacancies which are to be filled up by fresh recruitment. In support of the same, reliance is placed upon judgments titled as Laxman Prasad Sharma vs. Distt. & Sessions Judge Pratapgarh reported in 2005 (2) ILR Raj. 123, Surinder Singh and Anr. vs. State of Punjab; (1997) 8 SCC 488, and Raj Rishi Mehra and Ors. vs. Govt. of Punjab; Writ Petition (Civil) No. 77/ 2013, judgment dated 13.08.2013. 10. Additionally, it is submitted that vacancies arising out of subsequent resignation cannot be considered as vacant post and the waiting list can be operated only due to non-joining of selected candidates. 11. Heard and considered. 12. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, upon meticulous scanning of the records, taking [2025:RJ-JP:11838] (4 of 4) [CW-8311/2014] note of the judgments cited at the Bar, this Court has made the following observations:- 12.1 That entire selection process for the said post is concluded and no seats are lying vacant as on date. 12.2 That fresh recruitment for the said are carried out. 12.3 That no interim order, as on date, is operational qua the petitioner. 12.4 That the vacancies which arose due to resignation are future vacancies. 12.5 That petitioners’ name was at serial No. 2 in the waiting list and the candidate whose name was enumerated as first in the waiting list is not impleaded as a party in the present petition. 13. Relying upon the dictum encapsulated in Surinder Singh (supra), State of Orissa & Anr. v. Raj Kishore Nanda & Ors. reported in (2010) 6 SCC 777 and Raj Rishi Mehra & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2013) 12 SCC 243, this Court is of the opinion that filling up of vacancies over the notified vacancies amounts to filling up of future vacancies and thus, not permissible in law and a person whose name appears in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. 14. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J DEEPAK/334