Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) THE petitioners were successful in the examination for appointment to the post of LDC held pursuant to an advertisement for the purpose published on 10.03.2014. Under the said advertisement, a total of 64 posts were advertised to be filled up in the year 2014, of which 40 were those from regular vacancies and the remaining 24 were anticipated vacancies on the post. The petitioners being eligible participated in the selection process and state to have been included in the list of the top 64 successful candidates. However, appointments were offered only to 40 candidates i.e. against the regular vacancies, but not offered to others entitled, such as the petitioners, despite having passed the examination securing 40% or more marks in the aggregate with at least 30% marks in paper -I and paper -II and having achieved the minimum typing speed required under the Rajasthan Subordinate Court Ministerial Establishment Service Rules, 1986 (hereinafter "the Rules of 1986").
(2.) AGGRIEVED of the arbitrary non -filling up of the remainder 24 vacancies to the post of LDC, as advertised for the year 2014, the petitioners dispatched a notice for demand of justice through their counsel to the respondent - -District Judge, Bharatpur, but to no avail. Hence this petition on 17.09.2014. Mr. Ashok Bansal, appearing for the petitioners has submitted that albeit a selected candidate does not indeed have an indefeasible right to appointment to the post advertised, yet as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Asha Kaul (Mrs.) & Anr. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. [ : (1993) 2 SCC 573] those selected after due process cannot be abandoned by the appointing authority on its whims and caprice without any good reason being proffered. It has been submitted that no good and legally valid reason having been forthcoming from the respondents for non -appointment to the remainder 24 posts advertised, the evident arbitrariness of the respondent is liable to be rectified through the process of this Court in the exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with suitable directions beneficial to the petitioners being made.
(3.) MR . N.K. Maloo, Sr. Advocate appearing with Mr. Ajeet Maloo, for the respondent submitted that even though advertise for recruitment in the year 2014 were 64 posts of LDCs, the 24 anticipated vacancies only fructified on 15.01.2015 - -when promotions were made from LDC to UDC following the Departmental examinations. And as the vacancies advertised related to the year 2014 i.e. 1st January to 31st December. The vacancies on the post of LDC which became available on 15.01.2015 on promotions being made to the cadre of UDC were not open to appointment with reference to the advertisement dated 10.03.2014. It was further submitted that some inter -district transfer applications qua LDCs were pending before the Hon'ble High Court and the potential transferees to the Bharatpur Judgeship had to be adjusted, if directed by the High Court, against the 24 vacancies. And this was another reason as to why appointment to the remainder posts against anticipated vacancies advertised under the advertisement dated 10.03.2014 were not made. Sr. Counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [ : (1991) 3 SCC 47] to contend that no selected candidate has an indefeasible right to be appointed. It was then submitted that fresh recruitment process for appointment of LDCs now having been commenced, the writ petition should be dismissed. An additional affidavit in support of the reply has also been filed wherein it has been submitted that life of panel under Rule 19(iii) of the Rules of 1989 is one year from the date of declaration of result of the written test and thereafter even the names of the candidates selected have to be automatically removed from the register of the selected candidates. Whereupon such candidates left out are to again take their chance with others for recruitment in the subsequent years. The period of one year from the declaration of result has lapsed and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground also.;