Verma, J. - (1.) . All the above writ petitions involve same facts and law and, therefore, are being decided together.
(2.) . Vide advertisement No.5 of the year 1996-97 dated 5.8.1996, the Rajasthan Public Prosecutor Commission had invited applications for filling up 10 posts of Assistant Agriculture Research Officers (Botany) in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200. The RPSC after completing the formalities of selection had recommended 10 names for appointment to the department. All the 10 persons were appointed. The RPSC also prepared a reserve/waiting list of six persons. All the five petitions find place in the reserve list. Ashok Kumar Bansal was at No.1, Shiv Prakash Maheshwari was at No.2, Banshidhar Palsania was at No.3, Bhanwar Dan Detha was at No.4, Shyam Sunder Meena was at No.5 and Ramesh Chand was at No. 6. . After receipt of the recommendations of 10 persons and having appointed 10 persons certain representations were made to the Government to the effect that certain vacancies were still lying vacant and persons mentioned in the reserve list be appointed as per their merit. The State of Rajasthan, Department of Agriculture vide its letter No. 1624 dated 3.10.1997 addressed to the Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission had intimated the Commission that two vacancies were still lying vacant which were to be filled-up and, therefore, request was made to send two names as per merit of six persons from the reserve list. On receipt of the said letter, the RPSC vide its letter dated 21.10.1997 had sent all the six names as per the merit with the request that two of the said persons as per the merit of the reserve list and on the roster point can be filled up (this is so revealed from the record so produced). The Agriculture Department appointed Ashok Kumar Bansal, the petitioner and another persons Shyam Sunder Meena who was on waiting merit list at No.5 of the reserved category, however, Shyam Sunder Meena declined to join and his appointment was cancelled on 6.4.1998. The department appointed all the five persons of the reserve list instead of two posts for which the requisition was sent on 3.10.1997. . Action of the respondent to fill up five posts instead of two was objected to by the RPSC and clarification was sought for. The department sent the clarification that even though names against two posts were called for but the RPSC had sent the names of six persons who were on the reserve list. The RPSC was not satisfied and once again the matter was sent for clarification. Ultimately, the matter was even taken up at the highest level, legal opinion was sought and it was opined that filling of 10 vacancies for which requisition was sent and recommendations were made and after appointing 10 persons, none could be appointed over and above 10 recommendations. Alt the petitioners were removed from service vide impugned order, hence the present writ petitions. . It is the contention of the petitioner Ashok Kumar Bansal in S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 2987/2000 that he was one of the two appointees for which the requisition was made subsequently and that he is entitled to retain the job in question. In the order impugned Annexure-3 in the case of Ashok Kumar Bansal and also in the case of all other petitioners, while terminating their services, the respondent was of the opinion that the appointment has been made in violation to the judgment and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, action was taken under Rule 23-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules. It is also one of the contention that Ashok Kumar Bansal, petitioner, has now become over age and in any case he should not be removed after 2-1/2 years of his appointment. . Per contra, the respondents are defending the action being taken on the ground that no future vacancies becoming available subsequent to the advertisement, could have been filled up from the reserved list of the Commission and, therefore, the impugned order dated 30.6.2000 is perfectly in order.
(3.) . Ashok Kumar Bansal, the petitioner, also even goes on to say that there were as many as 12 vacancies instead of 10 and in any case there were 11 clear vacancies prior to the issuance of the advertisement as one vacancy had become available on 27,9.1996 and as such instead of sending advertisement for 10 vacancies, the advertisement should have been sent for 12 or in any case for 11 vacancies and relies on a circular issued by the department on 6.11.1997, copy of which is attached as Annexure-6 to the rejoinder which provides the contingencies when appointments can be made from the reserve list i.e.; (1) when person so selected does not join and the vacancy remains vacant; (2) if any vacancy has become available for the same year in which requisition was sent which was at the time of requisition could not be included for any reason and, therefore, submits that for the reason that one vacancy had become available and thus the petitioner Ashok Kumar Bansal was entitled for the said post which fact is denied in additional affidavit by the respondents saying that no such vacancy was available. . In the case of Roshni Devi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. (1), the vacancies advertised were 662. The list of 5373 candidates was prepared and out of this list 1692 candidates were recommended for appointment to different departments. One Sudesh Kumari had approached the High Court of Punjab & Haryana against such appointment. The appointments were not disturbed, however, direction was given that all those persons who were higher in merit as compared to the list person who might have been appoinlment as Clerk were entitled to be appointed. Certain other candidates also filed writ petitions challenging the selections and preparation of the list. Challenge was made on the ground that against 662 posts of clerks, list of 5373 could not have been prepared. Out of controversy raised in Supreme Court the following directions were issued: "(1) The appointments already made from out of the list prepared on ' 15.10.1989 will not be annulled. (2) The last person who is stated to have been appointed being at Serial No. 4645, persons occupying higher position than him could be considered for appointment to the post of Clerk if there exists any vacancy for them. (3) The vacancy in this context could mean the vacancies which were available in the State of Haryana prior to the advertisement issued for selecting persons for the said post for the year 1995. It is to be made clear that if no vacancies exist on the aforesaid date, then no further appointment would be made from out of the list prepared on 15.10.1989 notwithstanding the directions of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Sudesh Kumari case. (4) If vacancies did exist on the date as aforementioned, then the appointments from out of the list prepared on 15.10.1989 could be made strictly on the basis of their merit position in the list. (5) We strongly deprecate the practice of selecting and preparing an unusually large list compared to the vacancy position and the State Government should either amend the recruitment rules in that respect and till then should issued positive administrative instructions giving the right to the Selection Board to select only some persons in excess man the requisition for which the Board is going to select people. (6) We also do not approve of the inaction on the part of the Slate Government in not assailing the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sudesh Kumari case and now coming up before us making submissions that the judgment is practically in capable of being implemented." . In the case of State of Bihar v. Madan Mohan Singh & Ors. (2), the advertis-ment' and the whole selection process were confined to fill up only 32 vacancies. It was held that the merit list prepared of 128 candidates was to hold good only for the purpose of those 32 vacancies and no further because the said process of selection for those 32 vacancies got exhausted and came to an end and the list cannot be kept subsisting. It was further held that if the same list is held subsisting for the purpose of filling up other vacancies also that would naturally amount to deprivation of rights of other candidates who would have become eligible subsequent to the said advertisement and selection process. ;