A 2007 writ petition concerning a 2006 Rajasthan RAC Constable recruitment was dismissed as infructuous because the selection process had concluded, appointments were made, and government circulars state reserved/waiting lists lapse after six months; reliance was placed on Supreme Court judgments on expiry of select lists.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2025:RJ-JP:7511]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2096/2007
Ramesh Kumar
----Petitioner
| Versus | |
|---|---|
| State | |
| ----Respondent | |
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. B M Sharma |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, AAG |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
13/02/2025
(2 of 4)
[2025:RJ-JP:7511]
[CW-2096/2007]
issued in the year 2006 for the post of Constable in the R.A.C. 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.
5.1 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)
5.2 Girdhar Kumar Dadhich Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2009) 2 SCC 706:
(3 of 4)
[2025:RJ-JP:7511]
[CW-2096/2007]
“ 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. 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 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)
5.4 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 U.P. v. Rajkumar Sharma; (2006) 3 SCC
[2025:RJ-JP:7511]
[CW-2096/2007]
(4 of 4)
148, Ram Avtar Patwari V. State of Haryana; (2007) 10 SCC 94 and Rakhi Ray v. High Court of Delhi; (2010) 2 SCC 637.”
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Anil Sharma/184
1 issue framed by the court
Does a 2006 Constable (RAC) recruitment lis survive when the selection process is complete, appointments made, and the waiting list has lapsed after six months per government circulars?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Orissa & Anr. v. Raj Kishore Nanda & Ors.Relied on¶51
(2010) 6 SCC 777 · Who else cites this
Girdhar Kumar Dadhich Vs. State of RajasthanRelied on¶52
(2009) 2 SCC 706 · Who else cites this
Union of India v. B. ValluvanRelied on¶53
(2006) 8 SCC 686 · Who else cites this
Raj Rishi Mehra & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.Relied on¶54
(2013) 12 SCC 243 · Who else cites this
Ramesh Kumar
State
Sameer Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
