Dismissed¶¶44

Altaf Hussain v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC13 Feb 2025CW/8129/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Probodhak 2008 recruitment Bharatpur; stale/old recruitment Code 515 bunch; survival of lis efflux of time; reserved/waiting list lapses after six months; select list expiry no relief at belated stage; life of panel one year; no right to appointment from waiting list; consequential appointments already made; no vacant seats; Rajasthan DoP circulars 19.07.2001 and 13.01.2016; writ dismissed as infructuous; relied: Raj Kishore Nanda (2010) 6 SCC 777; Girdhar Kumar Dadhich (2009) 2 SCC 706; B. Valluvan (2006) 8 SCC 686; Raj Rishi Mehra (2013) 12 SCC 243.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; petition dismissed as rendered infructuous, with liberty to take appropriate legal recourse if the facts are otherwise; stay and other pending applications disposed of. ¶¶44

Altaf Hussain Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; petition dismissed as rendered infructuous, with liberty to take appropriate legal recourse if the facts are otherwise; stay and other pending applications disposed of.

¶¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the lis survives: the 2008 Probodhak recruitment is complete, consequential appointments have been made, no vacant seats remain, and under the Government of Rajasthan circulars the reserved/waiting list lapses after six months. +1 more

¶¶22

Court's answer

With efflux of time the lis does not survive: the waiting/reserve list lapses per the unassailed Government circulars, the recruitment process is over, and consequential appointments have already been made.

¶¶44

Ratio / Principle

Since the select list has expired and appointments stand made, no relief can be granted at a belated stage; accordingly the petition is dismissed as rendered infructuous.

¶¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), Single Judge (Sameer Jain, J.), 13/02/2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8129/2010 (listed in the Code 515 bunch of stale-recruitment matters per order dated 16.01.2025 in SBCWP No. 13880/2024): Writ petition (filed 2010) challenging the 2008 recruitment for the post of Probodhak held not to survive. Respondents showed the selection process complete with consequential appointments made, no vacant seats available, and, per unassailed Government of Rajasthan, Department of Personnel circulars dated 19.07.2001 (No. F.7(2)/DOP/A-2/81 Pt.) and 13.01.2016 (Personnel (A-2) Department), the reserved/waiting list lapses after six months. Petitioner's counsel neither refuted these contentions nor moved applications evidencing available seats. Relying 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 (waiting-list candidates have no right to appointment against unfilled posts), the Court dismissed the petition as rendered infructuous, leaving the petitioner liberty to take appropriate legal recourse if the facts are otherwise.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:7779]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8129/2010

¶4

Altaf Hussain S/o Shri Tyeb Hussain, Gram Paisa Kheda, Tehsil Punabhana, Distt. Bharatpur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶9

Commissioner, Elementary Education, State Of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶10

District Education Officer, Bharatpur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Ms.	Naina Saraf
For Respondent(s)	: Ms.	Sara Parveen for
	Mr.	Kapil Prakash Mathur,AAG

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶14

Judgment

¶15

13/02/2025

¶16

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.

¶17

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

(2 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:7779]

[CW-8129/2010]

(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.

¶22

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 2008 for the post of Probodhak. 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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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:

(3 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:7779]

[CW-8129/2010]

5.1 State of Orissa & Anr. v. Raj Kishore Nanda & Ors. reported in

¶29

(2010) 6 SCC 777 :

¶30

"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 ."

¶31

(Emphasis laid)

¶32

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

¶33

“ 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."

¶34

(Emphasis laid)

¶35

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

¶36

"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."

¶37

(Emphasis laid)

¶38

5.4 Raj Rishi Mehra & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in

¶39

(2013) 12 SCC 243:

(4 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:7779]

[CW-8129/2010]

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

¶44

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.

¶45

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.

¶46

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶47

Anil Sharma/389

Altaf Hussain v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Altaf Hussain 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