Facts
The petitioners were included in the reserve/waiting list prepared in a recruitment for System Assistant posts under Advertisement dated 18 December 2023.
Source reference: p. 3–6After the result was declared on 11 February 2025, 230 candidates were selected; 220 joined and 10 did not.
Source reference: p. 3–6Following cancellation of the non-joining candidates’ appointments, nine reserve-list candidates received appointment orders, of whom five joined.
Source reference: p. 3–6The petitioners sought appointment against vacancies arising when 68 candidates who had joined later resigned.
Source reference: p. 3–6The respondents opposed the claim, maintaining that resignation vacancies were fresh vacancies requiring a new recruitment process.
Source reference: p. 3–6Issues
Whether vacancies caused by the resignation of candidates who had joined after selection could be filled by operating the reserve/waiting list from that recruitment
Source reference: p. 6Whether the petitioners’ inclusion in that reserve/waiting list gave them a right to appointment against those vacancies
Source reference: p. 7Law Applied
The Court relied on Sudesh Kumar Goyal v. State of Haryana & Ors., (2023) 10 SCC 54, which held that where all vacancies notified in a recruitment have initially been filled, a vacancy arising because a selected candidate joins and later resigns is a fresh vacancy.
Source reference: p. 7It cannot ordinarily be filled from the earlier selection’s reserve/waiting list without a fresh advertisement and selection process.
Source reference: p. 7The respondents also referred to the Rajasthan Staff Services Rules, 2002, submitting that no specific period for operating the reserve list was prescribed; the Court’s decision, however, turned on the rule in Sudesh Kumar Goyal.
Source reference: p. 6Reasoning
The Court found that the 68 candidates had joined their posts before resigning.
Source reference: p. 7–8Their resignations therefore created fresh vacancies, rather than leaving unfilled posts from the original advertisement.
Source reference: p. 7–8Applying Sudesh Kumar Goyal, the Court held that those vacancies could not be filled from the earlier reserve/waiting list.
Source reference: p. 7–8The petitioners’ placement on that list consequently did not entitle them to appointment against the resignation vacancies.
Source reference: p. 7–8Holding
The Court answered the principal issue against the petitioners, holding that vacancies caused by post-joining resignations could not be filled through the reserve/waiting list from the earlier recruitment.
It found no merit in the petition and dismissed it; pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.
Source reference: p. 8Original Court PDF
KASHIF KHANvsTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
