Dismissed¶40

Satish Kumar Sen v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC13 Feb 2025CW/4744/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gram Rozgar Sahayak recruitment 2008 Rajasthan; stale/old selection process; Code 515 bunch; waiting/reserve list lapses after six months per circulars dated 19.07.2001 (F.7(2)/DOP/A-2/81 Pt.) and 13.01.2016; select list not a reservoir; no relief at belated stage; panel life ordinarily one year; writ petition dismissed as infructuous; relied on State of Orissa v. Raj Kishore Nanda (2010) 6 SCC 777, Girdhar Kumar Dadhich (2009) 2 SCC 706, Union of India v. B. Valluvan (2006) 8 SCC 686, Raj Rishi Mehra (2013) 12 SCC 243; liberty to pursue other legal recourse preserved.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; petition dismissed as rendered infructuous. Petitioner(s) at liberty to take appropriate legal recourse if the facts are otherwise; pending stay and/or other applications stand disposed of. ¶40

Satish Kumar Sen Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition survives at all, given that the impugned 2008 Gram Rozgar Sahayak recruitment/selection process stands completed with consequential appointments, no vacant seats are available, and the reserved/waiting list lapses after six months of the public recruitment examination under the (unassailed) Government circulars.

¶18

Court's answer

This Court is of the view that, with efflux of time, the lis in the instant stale-recruitment petition does not survive, the petitioner having failed to refute the respondents' contentions or substantiate seat availability with any evidenced application.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The Court places reliance on the reproduced catena of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgments (State of Orissa v. Raj Kishore Nanda; Girdhar Kumar Dadhich v. State of Rajasthan; Union of India v. B. Valluvan; Raj Rishi Mehra v. State of Punjab) for the propositions that a select list is not a reservoir for future appointments, select lists/panels have finite validity extendable only per rules, and waiting-list candidates have no automatic right to appointment - so no relief lies where the selection is over, the list has expired and appointments stand made.

¶19

Key takeaways

Since much time has elapsed since the impugned advertisement, consequential appointments are already made, and the afore-stated circulars - not assailed till date - unambiguously provide that the waiting/reserve list shall lapse, the petition is dismissed as rendered infructuous, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to take appropriate legal recourse if the facts are otherwise.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4744/2008 (Satish Kumar Sen v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), decided 13.02.2025 by Sameer Jain, J.: a 2008-advertisement recruitment for the post of Gram Rozgar Sahayak, bunched under Code 515 pursuant to order dated 16.01.2025 in SBCWP No. 13880/2024, was dismissed as rendered infructuous. The recruitment process stands completed with consequential appointments, fresh recruitments have been initiated in certain matters and no vacant seats remain; the petitioner neither rebutted this nor produced evidenced support for seat availability. Per the unassailed Government of Rajasthan, Department of Personnel circular dated 19.07.2001 (No. F.7(2)/DOP/A-2/81 Pt.) and a further circular dated 13.01.2016, reserved/waiting lists for public recruitment examinations lapse after six months; hence, with efflux of time, the lis does not survive. The Court relied on State of Orissa v. Raj Kishore Nanda (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 v. State of Punjab (2013) 12 SCC 243 (select list not a reservoir; no relief at a belated stage once selection is over and appointments made; waiting-list candidates have no automatic right to appointment). Petitioner left at liberty to take appropriate legal recourse if the facts are otherwise; stay and other pending applications stand disposed of.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:7366]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4744/2008

Satish Kumar Sen

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Raj And Ors

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ashish Saksena For Respondent(s) : Ms.Sara Parveen for Mr.Kapil Prakash Gupta, AAG Mr.Kesar Singh Shekhawat, AGC

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶11

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. 2. 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.

¶14

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

(2 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:7366]

[CW-4744/2008]

which an advertisement was issued in the year 2008 for the post of Gram Rozgar Sahayak. 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.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is neither able to refute the aforementioned contentions, nor has moved any application(s) supported by evidences, to substantiate the availability of seats/ survival of the lis in hand. 5. In light of the foregoing facts and circumstances of the instant matter, the contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties, 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:

¶20

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

¶21

"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 ."

¶22

(Emphasis laid)

¶23

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

¶24

“ 16. Furthermore, the select list would ordinarily remain valid for one year. We fail to understand on what basis

(3 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:7366]

[CW-4744/2008]

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."

¶29

(Emphasis laid)

¶30

5.3 Union of India v. B. Valluvan reported in (2006) 8 SCC

¶31

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

5.4 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.

(4 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:7366]

[CW-4744/2008]

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; (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 the facts are otherwise. Stay application and/or any other applications, if pending, shall stand disposed of.

¶42

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶43

Preeti Asopa /241

Satish Kumar Sen v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar Sen v. State of Raj 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

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

Rajesh Kumar Agarwal Vs State and Ors.

Sandeep Mishra Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Jagdish Prasad Vs State of Raj