Dismissed¶40

Rajesh Kumar Agarwal v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC13 Feb 2025CW/2700/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Stale recruitment Code 515 bunch; survival of lis; waiting/reserved list lapses after six months (circulars dated 19.07.2001 and 13.01.2016); select list validity and exhaustion; no relief at belated stage; Lab Technician recruitment advertisement year 2000; petition dismissed as infructuous; liberty to pursue other legal recourse; reliance on Supreme Court judgments on select list/panel expiry.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner(s) at liberty to take appropriate legal recourse if the grievance still survives; stay application and/or any other pending applications stand disposed of. ¶40

Rajesh Kumar Agarwal Vs State and Ors. — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner(s) at liberty to take appropriate legal recourse if the grievance still survives; stay application and/or any other pending applications stand disposed of.

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the lis arising from the 2000 Lab Technician recruitment survives, given that the selection process is over, consequential appointments are made, no vacant seats remain, and the reserved/waiting list lapses after six months per the Government of Rajasthan circulars.

¶14

Court's answer

With efflux of time, the lis in question does not survive: the impugned selection/recruitment process is over, consequential appointments are made, and the reserved/waiting list lapses after six months per the Government circulars dated 19.07.2001 and 13.01.2016.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Reliance is placed on the reproduced Supreme Court judgments (State of Orissa v. Raj Kishore Nanda; Girdhar Kumar Dadhich; Union of India v. B. Valluvan; Raj Rishi Mehra), which establish that no relief can be granted at a belated stage once the selection process is over and the select list/panel has expired or been exhausted.

¶20

Key takeaways

Since much water has flown since the 2000 advertisement, consequential appointments are already made, and the afore-stated circulars — which are not assailed till date — make it unambiguous that the waiting/reserve list lapses, the petition is dismissed as rendered infructuous.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), Sameer Jain, J. — S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2700/2000, decided 13/02/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:7065]. Petitioner challenged the recruitment pursuant to an advertisement issued in the year 2000 for the post of Lab Technician; the matter was listed among the Code 515 bunch of old/stale recruitment cases in compliance of the order dated 16.01.2025 passed in SBCWP No. 13880/2024. Respondents submitted that the selection process is over, consequential appointments made, no vacant seats remain, and that per the circulars of the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Personnel dated 19.07.2001 (No. F.7(2)/DOP/A-2/81 Pt.) and dated 13.01.2016, the reserved/waiting list for public recruitment examinations lapses after six months. Holding that with efflux of time the lis does not survive, and relying on State of Orissa & Anr. v. Raj Kishore Nanda & Ors. (2010) 6 SCC 777; Girdhar Kumar Dadhich v. State of Rajasthan (2009) 2 SCC 706; Union of India v. B. Valluvan (2006) 8 SCC 686; and Raj Rishi Mehra & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2013) 12 SCC 243, the Court dismissed the petition as rendered infructuous, leaving the petitioner liberty to take appropriate legal recourse if the grievance survives.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:7065]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2700/2000

¶4

Rajesh Kumar Agarwal aged about 32 years, son of Shri Sunder Lal Agarwal, resident of Plot No.80, Krishna Nagar, Brahmpuri Road, Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Medical & Health Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director, Medical & Health Department, Swasthya Bhawan, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

University of Rajasthan, through its Registrar, JLN Marg, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr.Archit Bohra, AGC

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment

¶12

13/02/2025

¶13

In compliance of the directions of the Court as encapsulated 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.

¶14

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 with associate and other advocates 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 recruitment process is already over alongwith consequential appointments being made, moreover, in certain matters subsequent fresh recruitment(s) is/are initiated and as on date, no vacant seats are available.

¶15

Today when the matter is up on board (after granting reasonable time to the petitioners to apprise the Court with availability of seats), it is submitted by the counsel representing the respondents that the matter pertains to the recruitment qua which an advertisement was issued in the year 2000 for the post

[2025:RJ-JP:7065]

[CW-2700/2000]

(2 of 4)

of Lab Technician. 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.

¶20

In light of the foregoing facts and circumstances of the instant matter, the contentions made by the learned counsel for the respondent(s), this Court is of the view that with efflux of time the lis in question does not survive. Additionally, reliance can be placed upon the catena of judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a few of them are reproduced herein below:

¶21

4.1 State of Orissa & Anr. v. Raj Kishore Nanda & Ors. reported in (2010) 6 SCC 777 :

¶22

"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 ."

¶23

(Emphasis laid)

¶24

4.2 Girdhar Kumar Dadhich Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2009) 2 SCC 706:

¶25

“ 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

(3 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:7065]

[CW-2700/2000]

list had been extended, no document in support thereof has been placed before us."

¶30

(Emphasis laid)

¶31

4.3 Union of India v. B. Valluvan reported in (2006) 8 SCC 686:

¶32

"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."

¶33

(Emphasis laid)

¶34

4.4 Raj Rishi Mehra & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2013) 12 SCC 243:

¶35

“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 148, Ram Avtar Patwari V. State of Haryana;

(4 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:7065]

[CW-2700/2000]

(2007) 10 SCC 94 and Rakhi Ray v. High Court of Delhi; (2010) 2 SCC 637.”

¶40

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 already made; that vide the afore-stated circulars, which are not assailed till date, it is unambiguous that the said waiting/reserve list shall lapse, thence, the present petition is dismissed as rendered infructuous.

¶41

However, the petitioner(s) will be at liberty to take appropriate legal recourse, if their grievance still survives. Stay application and/or any other applications, if pending, shall stand disposed of.

¶42

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶43

Preeti Asopa /28

Rajesh Kumar Agarwal v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Agarwal v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babu Khan Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Bhagwana Ram Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Dr. Antoni S/O Shri Sukh Pal Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sandeep Mishra Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Jagdish Prasad Vs State of Raj

Ramesh Kumar Vs State