Slnghal, J. - (1.) THE only argument submitted by Mr. Gaur, learned counsel for the appellants is that once a reserve list is prepared for the purpose of Considering the appointment of the candidates for a post by the Public Service Commission, that person acquires a legal right, in case a vacancy existed for appointment on that post.
(2.) THE petitioners-appellants have applied for selection to the Rajasthan Judicial Service in the year 1980 in respect of 39 vacancies published. In the main list of 39 candidates, one Shri Prem Kumar has not joined the service and a reserve list of 20 candidates was prepared in which Shri S. S. Bohra was at serial No. 1 and Shri Padam Chand Soni was at Serial No. 14. Learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 30. 9. 1983 has held that no legal right accrues by sending the reserve list, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Subhas Chandra Marwah (1), wherein it was held that the existence of the vacancies does not give rise to a legal right to the candidate for appointment. It was further held that the decision of the Government not to fill up the vacancy out of the candidates selected is not an infringement of any principle and no legal right can be claimed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that once a name is shown to be existing in the reserve list and the said list is sent for consideration to the Government, a legal right accrues to the person whose name is appearing in such reserve list. Reliance was placed on the decision of this court in Amarchand and others vs. State of Rajasthan & Others THE judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Umakant vs. Dr. Bhikalal Jain (3) was also cited to show that if the name is kept in the reserve list, then a right is created. THE said judgment is not an authority for the proposition on initial appointment, but was with regard to the promotion and besides this, the appointing authority was going to promote the persons, whereas, in the present case the appointing authority has not intended to appoint the person from the reserve list and as such the said judgment does not help the petitioner-appellant. Another judgment relied on is Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jodhpur etc. v/s State of Rajasthan & Others (4), which is also of no help to the appellants because in that case it was held that the recommendations of the Selection Committee can be refused on valid ground and not arbitrarily. In this very judgment, it has been observed that it cannot be disputed that the selected candidates whose names were included by the Selection Committee in the list of selected candidates were not conferred with any right of appointment. It is not a case where the question of arbitrariness in not accepting the recommendations of the Selection Committee is to be examined. This judgment clearly mentions that no legal rights are conferred. In these circumstances, this authority also does not help the appellants. There is no ground of arbitrariness either before the learned single Judge or before us. Therefore, this judgment also does not help the appellants. We have heard the arguments and gone through the record. Simply because the name was shown to be existing in the reserve list, it does not give a legal right for appointment. The only right which a candidate could claim is that if the appointments are to be made only then out of the name of the persons after exhausting the main list, the selection could be made only from the reserve list, but if the Government decides not to make an appointment from the reserve list, then no legal right can be said to have accrued to the appellants. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above also supports this proposition of law. Beside this, at this belated period of more than 10 years, no action could have, otherwise been possible. In these circumstances, we feel that the judgment given by the learned Single Judge is in accordance with law and no interference can be made. In the result, the special appeals fail and are hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs. .;