Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dr Rakesh Meena vs R P S C Ajmer &Ors; on 28 June, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1727 / 2015
Dr Rakesh Meena son of Shri J.R. Meena aged about 27 years, by
caste Meena, resident of B-13, Tirupati Nagar, Jagatpura, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission through its Secretary,
Rajasthan Service Commission, Ajmer (Rajasthan).
2. State of Rajasthan through its Principal Secretary, Ayurved and
Indian Medicines, Ayurved Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Govt.
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Homeopathic Medical Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur-
7, Everest Colony, Lal Kothi Tonk Road, Jaipur-15.
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Soni with Mr. Vishal Soni For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.F. Baig Mr. Parikshit Singh, Dy.G.C. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA REPORTABLE Judgment Judgment Reserved on : 02/05/2017 Judgment Pronounced on : 28/06/2017 The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that the impugned action of the respondents for not giving appointment to the petitioner as Homeopathic Chikitsadhikari be quashed and set aside and the respondent Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter called as 'RPSC') be directed to recommend the name of the petitioner to the State Government for appointment as Homeopathic Chikitsadhikari, as the said post has remained vacant due to non-joining of selected candidate Mr. Hanuman (2 of 18) [CW-1727/2015] Meena, who like the petitioner also belonged to the Scheduled Tribe Category.
Briefly stated, the petitioner is a member of Scheduled Tribe Category. The petitioner had completed graduation in Homoeopathic Medical Sciences in the year 2010. Thereafter, he completed his internship and was registered with the Rajasthan State Board of Homoeopathic Medicine, Jaipur and also with Central Council of Homoeopathy.
The respondent RPSC on 8.3.2011 had issued an advertisement (Annexure-5) inviting online applications for 43 posts of Homeopathic Chikitsadhikari. The petitioner being qualified, applied for the said post and vide letter dated 23.11.2012 (Annexure-6) was called for the interview. On 14.12.2012, the result of the interview was declared and the petitioner was placed at serial No.16 in the Reserve/Waiting List. The name of the petitioner surfaced at No.1 in the Reserve/Waiting List, in the category of Scheduled Tribe Candidates.
The selection made by RPSC for the post of Homeopathic Chikitsadhikari was challenged in the writ petition titled as Deepak Najkani vs. State & Ors., SBCWP No.689/2013. Initially, the court had granted stay against the appointments but later on the stay was modified and same was confined to one post.
It is pleaded in the writ petition that the petitioner learnt later that one successful candidate Mr. Hanuman Meena, who belonged to Scheduled Tribe, had not joined and thus, one (3 of 18) [CW-1727/2015] post in the category of Scheduled Tribe remained vacant. The petitioner immediately filed an application under the Right to Information Act and upon information furnished by the respondents, learnt that Mr. Hanuman Meena the selected candidate, had not joined even though extension for time to join was granted to him. To fortify the above submission, attention of court has been drawn to Annexure-9 and 10. Vide Annexure-10, the State Government on 26.7.2013 informed the petitioner that Mr. Hanuman Meena inspite of extension had not joined his place of posting. The petitioner immediately approached the respondents and requested them that he be appointed as Homeopathic Chikitsadhikari against the post which remained vacant due to non-joining of Mr. Hanuman Meena.
Aggrieved against the action of the respondents not to permit the petitioner to join the said post, which had become vacant due to non-joining of Mr. Hanuman Meena, the petitioner filed SBCWP No.778/2014. The said writ petition was decided on 27.1.2014 by the co-ordinate Bench by passing the following order:-
"Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner has become entitled for appointment on the post of Homeopathic Chikitsadhikari by virtue of the fact that the last candidate in the category of Scheduled Tribe i.e. Shri Hanuman Meena has not joined despite extension granted to him. Name of the petitioner stood at S.No.1 in the reserved list of S.T. Category candidates. Petitioner represented the respondents, but he has been informed by communication dated 31.12.2013 (Annexure-13) that the matter is under active consideration of the Government.
Having regard to the fact that since the respondents have (4 of 18) [CW-1727/2015] not taken a final view of the matter whether or not to operate the reserved list, this Court does not deem it appropriate to directly entertain the writ petition. However, respondent no.1 is directed to take final view of the matter within four weeks from the date appropriate representation is made by the petitioner before him.
With that direction, the writ petition is disposed of. "
The petitioner in pursuance of above order, on 11.2.2014 filed a representation. The said representation was not decided and consequently, the petitioner filed a contempt petition i.e. S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.655/2014. In the said contempt petition, the respondent no.1 submitted order dated 20.11.2014 (Annexure-14). In the impugned order dated 20.11.2014, it was recorded that the State Government had requested Secretary, RPSC, to forward name of the next person in the Reserve/Waiting List due to non-joining of Mr. Hanuman Meena. The Secretary, RPSC, informed that as per Circular dated 19.7.2001 issued by the Government, the period of six months after vacation of stay by the High Court came to an end on 28.11.2013 and hence, Reserve/Waiting List cannot be operated. Therefore, the representation filed by the petitioner was rejected. On 9.1.2015, the contempt petition bearing SBCCP No.655/2014 was dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench by passing the following order:-
"Contempt of the order dated 27.01.2014, passed by this Court is alleged in this contempt petition. Therein this Court had directed as under :
"Having regard to the fact that since the respondents have not taken a final view of the matter whether or not to operate the reserved list, this Court does not deem it appropriate to directly entertain the writ petition. However, respondent No.1 is directed to take final view of the matter (5 of 18) [CW-1727/2015] within four weeks from the date appropriate representation is made by the petitioner before him."
Reply to the petition has been filed. It has been submitted that in pursuance to the order passed by this Court on 27.01.2014, the petitioner's representation was considered and a speaking order was passed on 20.011.2014 whereunder the State Government took an extremely liberal view of the matter even though over six months have elapsed since the declaration of the select list for the post concerned and appointment of the selected candidates by referring the matter to the RPSC on the question as to whether the reserved list could be made operative. Thereupon the RPSC appears to have considered the matter and again reiterated that over six months had elapsed since the declaration of the select list for the post concerned and appointment being made thereunder, whereupon in terms of the State Government circular dated 19.07.2001 the time frame for operating the reserved list had expired. Even though so recording it was also observed that the matter would be further considered by the Full Board of RPSC.
Mr. Rajendra Soni, appearing with Mr. Mohit Soni, for the petitioner submits that the consideration by the State Government even though complete as directed by this Court, yet the consideration by the RPSC remained incomplete and that constitutes contempt.
Heard.
I am afraid that there is no force in the aforesaid contention as the matter has been considered by the State to which alone a direction was issued under the Court's order dated 27.01.2014. The matter now rests with the RPSC for further consideration by the "Full Board" even though a prima facie view against the operation of the reserved list after lapsing of over six months from the date of declaration of select list and even appointments thereunder has been taken. Merely because the matter was kept for further consideration of the Full Board of RPSC, non-compliance with the order dated 27.01.2014, passed (6 of 18) [CW-1727/2015] by this Court cannot at all be made out.
The contempt petition is without force.
Dismissed. Notices discharged.
The petitioner, if so advised, shall however be free to challenge the decision of the RPSC not to operate the reserved list qua the petitioner at his own risk and costs."
Thereafter, the petitioner on 21.1.2015, issued a notice for demand of justice. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
The co-ordinate Bench had issued notice and in response thereto, the respondents have filed the reply. In the reply filed, the respondents have reiterated that since as per Circular issued by the Government, the period of six months elapsed, therefore, Reserve/Waiting List cannot remain in vogue. It is specifically stated in the reply that the validity of the period of six months of the Reserve/Waiting List expired on 10.8.2013 and the respondent Commission in its meeting held on 28.1.2015 decided not to exclude the period of litigation for extending the validity to the Reserve/Waiting List beyond period of six months.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Ghanshyam Singh Rathore vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2012(2) WLC 443, to contend that where the petitioner had approached the High Court within two and a half months, mere expiry of period of six months will not defeat the right of the petitioner to seek appointment qua the post applied. Para 17 of the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate Bench in case of Ghanshyam Singh Rathore (supra) reads as under:-
(7 of 18) [CW-1727/2015] "The respondents, in the present case, having advertised 54 vacancies, called 54 candidates for Interview and, out of them, two did not offer themselves for appointment;
there was no conscious decision of the respondents not to fill up the advertised vacancies; rather conduct of the respondents reflect that they decided to fill up all the advertised vacancies, when two vacancies remained unfilled on account of two candidates having not offered themselves for appointment and despite the claim made by the petitioner to give him appointment there against, action of the respondents not to give him appointment cannot be approved in law. The petitioner in the present case, when he came to know about appointment only of 52 candidates against 54 advertised vacancies and that he was placed at Serial No.1 in the waiting-list, is right in claiming the appointment against the unfilled vacancies. The factor that he approached this Court within 4 days after making representation by him to the respondents, cannot be taken against him; more-so, since the petitioner within two-and-a-half months of the appointments, approached this Court and his writ petition was entertained. Mere expiry of the waiting-list during pendency of the writ petition, the validity period whereof was six months, also cannot be taken as a factor against him if the writ petition was not decided within that time. Even then his rights will have to be determined on the basis of law and facts as available on the day on which the writ petition was filed."
A perusal of the judgment rendered in the case of Ghanshyam Singh Rathore (supra), reveals that the petitioner in that case had approached the High Court within period of two and a half months of the appointment made and it was held that merely because the High Court could not decide the writ petition, it cannot be said that the validity period of six months of Reserve/Waiting List will expire.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied (8 of 18) [CW-1727/2015] upon the judgment rendered by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bal Krishan Sharma vs. State & Ors, SBCWP No.1517/2008, decided on 22.12.2010 and urged that the period for which due to interim order granted by the court Reserve/Waiting List could not operate, the said period is to be excluded. The operative portion of the judgment rendered in the case of Bal Krishan Sharma (supra) reads as under:-
"However, in instant case, grievance is only in regard to vacancies duly advertised which remained unfilled on account of non-joining of successful candidates and the requisition was sent by appointing authority. On the contrary, it has been consistently held by the Court that reserve list can always be used if advertised vacancies having remained unfilled provided requisition is sent by the Government within a period of six months as provided under Rules.
In K.Thulaseedharan Vs. Kerala State PSC Trivandrum (2007(6) SCC 190), the Apex Court observed that validity of reserve list could not have been extended after its period having expired. But if appointing authority was precluded from giving appointment out of select list and on that count, requisition could not have been sent to the PSC and it has already been observed that act of the Court should not cause any prejudice to the litigant, certainly the period during which interim order remained operative deserves to be excluded from consideration of period of six months provided U/r 20 and if that be so, indisputably requisition sent by appointing authority was within six months from main select list forwarded on 18/04/2007.
This Court has taken note of letter dt.05/12/2007 wherein State Government itself clarified in an unequivocal terms that since six successful candidates out of advertised vacancies have not joined whose appointments have been cancelled, against which requisition was being sent calling for six names (4 male & 2 female in general category) for (9 of 18) [CW-1727/2015] giving them appointment against advertised vacancies which remained unfilled in course of life of reserve list which subsisted due to interim order being in operation from 26/04/2007 to 17/07/2007, deserves to be excluded while consideration of six months time provided U/r 20 of Rules, 1970. In the present facts and circumstances, action of respondent PSC was arbitrary and is violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India.
Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Letter dt.22/12/2007 (Schedule B) of respondent- PSC is hereby quashed & set aside. Respondent-1 is directed to send names to the State Government pursuant to its requisition dt.05/12/2007 (Schedule A) and the State Government is further directed to consider candidature of petitioner and of other applicants eligible for appointment pursuant to selection made in reference to advertisement No.3/2004-05 dt.18/08/2004 in accordance with law. Respondents should ensure compliance of this order within three months. "
A further reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Alka Agrawal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., SBCWP No. 13084/2011, decided on 17.3.2016. In the case of Alka Agrawal (supra), the co- ordinate Bench held as under:-
"21. In the case of Sat Pal (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land while explaining the commencement of operation of waiting list in no uncertain terms observed that a waiting list commences to operate, after the vacancies for which the recruitment process has been conducted have been filled up. From the fact situation that emerges in the instant case at hand, it is evident that the recruitment process conducted for filling up the 26 vacancies in fact did not conclude uptill 23rd February, 2011, for 8 vacancies were never filled up. It is also relevant to take note of the fact that the last date to assume the charge to the last candidate out of the main (10 of 18) [CW-1727/2015] list was indicated as 23rd February, 2011, therefore, the stand of the respondent-Commission, in declining the requisition of the State Government to forward the names of the candidates from the waiting list as is evident from communication dated 17th March, 2011, on the pretext of validity period of the reserve list expired on 19th February, 2011; is absolutely baseless and without any factual foundation. This Court is not oblivious of the fact that even a selected candidate in the main list would have no indefeasible right for appointment even if the vacancy existed, but in the instant case at hand, the State- respondents themselves with an intentional to operate the reserve list, which allows a room to the appointing authority to fill up the vacancies during subsistence of the waiting list has been declined by the respondent- Commission on a technical ground without any logic or reasoning in support thereof.
22. It is not the case of the respondents that there has been no requisition made by the appointing authority for appointment from the reserve/wait list. So also it is not the case of the State-respondents that there was any decision for not filling up the vacancies for reasons sustainable in law. The selection process would come to an end only when the vacancies under recruitment process are filled up and the waiting list has lapsed for the statutory period provided under the relevant rules.
23. On being queried, the learned counsel for the State- respondents denied of any recruitment process undertaken after the advertisement involved herein. The appointing authority cannot ignore the select panel or decline the appointments on its whims and fancy. For no reason has been spelt out in the counter-affidavit for not proceedings with the recruitment process rather communication dated 17th March, 2011, reflects the intention and proves that fact that the State-respondents did proceed with the recruitment process for 8 vacancies, which could not filled as the selected candidates in the main list did not assume the charge.
(11 of 18) [CW-1727/2015]
24. For the reasons and discussions aforesaid, the writ application succeeds and is hereby allowed.
25. The State-respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment, if she is otherwise found suitable.
26. Needless to observe that in case, the petitioner is found suitable for appointment, the appointment would relate back to the same recruitment process in accordance with the Rules and service conditions of the cadre on notional basis. Her seniority will be determined below the last selected candidate. The respondents would ensure compliance of the order within six weeks from the date a certified copy of the order is made available to them.
27. No costs."
A perusal of the judgments relied reveal that the judgment in the case of Ghanshyam Singh Rathore (supra), Bal Krishan Sharma (supra) and Alka Agrawal (supra) are judgments on facts of each case. The said judgments in no way have laid the ratio of law which ought to be followed in each and every case.
However, it may be noted that a learned Single Judge of this Court summed up entire case law regarding validity of Reserve/Waiting List in the case of Nand Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr., RLW 2004 (1) Raj 435, as under:-
"(13). As per the case of the respondents, the merit/select list was prepared on 25.1.1997 and as per proviso (ii) of Rule 274 (i) of the Rules of 1996, it shall remain valid for a period of one year i.e. upto 25.1.1998 and thus, the term of the select list had already expired before the petitioner submitted his representation Annex. 3 dated 1.6.1998.
(14). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of UP and Ors. v.
Harish Chandra and Ors. (1), has observed that candidates seeking appointment after expiry of period of select list had no right.
(15). In Rajendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (2), (12 of 18) [CW-1727/2015] a Division Bench of this Court observed that a finality is to be attached to the selection process. It cannot be allowed to remain open and continuing. If that be so, rights of candidates who acquire eligibility subsequently will be adversely affected and that will be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Selection process has a life and it cannot be extended except as permitted by relevant service Rules.
(16). In State of Bihar and Ors. v. Md. Kalimuddin and Ors. (3), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that since Rule provides that select list shall be valid for one year from the date of approval of project by Select Committee, therefore, continuance of list beyond one year is illegal and even the High Court cannot continue list beyond one year unless its constitutional validity is challenged. (17). In M.P. Electricity Board v. Virendra Kumar Sharma (4), it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that denial of appointment to a selectee of such list after expiry of the panel on the basis of the said circular did not call for interference by the High Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that rational behind providing of validity/currency of panel for a particular period is to consider new candidates who may be better or more qualified.
(18). In J. Ashok Kumar v. State of A.P. and Ors. (5), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that selection having already been over and the selected candidates having been appointed, no relief could be granted to the rest candidates.
(19). This Court in Tara Chand Bhati v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (6), has observed that the panel of selected candidates cannot be valid for indefinite period. Moreover, impaneled candidates in any event cannot have a right against future vacancies.
On waiting list (20). On waiting list, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Bhattacharjee v. Union of India (7), observed that if the name of the candidate has appeared in the waiting list, it (13 of 18) [CW-1727/2015] does not confer any right of appointment on him and fresh recruitment can therefore be resorted to without appointing such candidate.
(21). It is now well settled by series of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the empanelment of the candidate in the select list confers no right on the candidates to appointment on account of being so empanelled. What to talk of reserve list, even a person, whose name is found in select list, had no right of appointment.
(22). Thus, it can be concluded that where the Rule specially provides that select list would be lapsed after a period of one year, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot give direction to make appointment after the expiry of period of select list. (23). Furthermore, a select list once made does not exist forever. It gets exhausted on completion of the selection process which was held pursuant to a particular advertisement or invitation. In other words, it can be said that the life of a select list will get exhausted if the requisite candidates are selected for the specified vacancies and appointments made accordingly or if not so selected or appointed then on the expiry of the period prescribed. If the life has expired then the Court cannot direct such a non-existent list to continue.
(24). Keeping the above law in mind, if the case of the present petitioner is examined, it has no merit at all. (25). In the present case, the select list was prepared on 25.1.1997 and proviso (ii) of Rule 274 (1) of the Rules of 1996 clearly provides that the life of select list would be one year and thus, the life of select list had expired on 25.1.1998 and when the life of select list had already expired, therefore, the petitioner had no right whatsoever to seek appointment on the basis of waiting list and apart from this, the petitioner made representation through Annex. 3 on 1.6.1998 and at that time, the period of select list had already expired.
(26). So far as the case of Gurender Singh is concerned, (14 of 18) [CW-1727/2015] that case can be distinguished from the facts of the present case as in that case, the representation was made before the expiry of period of select list, while in the present case, the representation was filed by the petitioner through Annex. 3 on 1.6.1998 i.e. after expiry of period of select list.
(27). So far as the ruling relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Purushottam v. Chairman, M.S.E.B. and Anr. (8), where it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that duly selected candidate could not be denied appointment on the pretext that panel's term had expired, is concerned, that proposition is altogether different from the position of law of the present case. It is made clear that if a duly selected candidate was not given appointment because of some suspicion or quarries and that suspicion becomes over after the expiry of term of panel, in such a situation, in the case of Purushottam (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the expiry of term of panel would not come in way for appointment of such candidate. This is not the position in the present case. Therefore, the law laid down in the case of Purushottam (supra), would not be helpful to the petitioner.
(28). For the reasons stated above, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and thus, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed."
Thus, the legal position from the case law cited, can be summed up as under:-
(a) Selected candidate has no indefesible right to compel to the appointing authority to issue appointment letter. However, a right of a selected candidate cannot be denied on a whim and caprice.
(b) That the period where due to issuance of any interim order by the court Reserve/Waiting List could not operate, is to be excluded from the consideration.
(c) That a candidate in the waiting/reserve list, upon non-joining (15 of 18) [CW-1727/2015] of selected candidate, if approach court within shelf life of waiting or reserve list, then his right shall not be defeated merely because court could not decide the case.
(d) As held by this Court in the case of Pushpendra Agarwal vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., SBCWP No.3569/2015, decided on 20.10.2016, the Reserve/Waiting List shall operate from the date when the selected candidate had not joined. Therefore, the period of six months to give effect to the Reserve/Waiting List has to commence from the date when selected candidate had not joined.
(e) The State Government in the larger interest can shelve entire selection including the Reserve/Waiting List to have benefit of human resource and talent so that new candidates who are better or more qualified can be recruited to serve the State.
On the touchstone of above principles, this Court shall consider that claim of the petitioner that he be granted appointment beyond period of six months regarding validity of the Reserve/Waiting List to the petitioner, due to non-joining of selected candidate Mr. Hanuman Meena.
In the present case, the select list was issued by the respondents on 14.12.2012. The name of the petitioner on 14.12.2012 was also included in the Reserve/Waiting List. Extension was granted to Mr. Hanuman Meena on 29.7.2013. After the period of extension, he had not joined and on 6.12.2013, post became vacant. The petitioner immediately filed writ petition and the said writ petition was decided on 27.1.2014 by directing the respondent no.1 to take a final view within four weeks upon filing (16 of 18) [CW-1727/2015] of representation by the petitioner.
This Court may observe here that right of the petitioner stood crystalized on 6.12.2013 when Mr. Hanuman Meena had not joined. The period of six months had to operate from the said date and the petitioner within time had approached this Court. The claim of the petitioner was not decided by this Court and the petitioner was relegated to file a representation to respondents. The petitioner accepted the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench on 27.1.2014.
The directions obtained by a litigant to approach the respondents for redressal of the grievances by filing representation cannot extend shelf life or validity to the period of Reserve/Waiting List. The petitioner abandoned his right on 27.1.2014 when he accepted the decision of the learned Single Judge to approach the respondents for redressal of the grievances. The representation filed by the petitioner was rejected on 29.11.2014. Merely because representation of the petitioner was pending and same was not decided by the authorities will not extend validity to the Reserve/Waiting List, which stood extinguished within a period of six months. It is settled legal position that pendency of representation or non decision thereof shall not cover the delay and latches. It shall also not condone limitation.
The time has come when litigant aware of his rights must stand up and urge before the court that his case be decided on merits instead of disposing of his case by enabling him to resort to filing of representation. Once the petitioner accepted the (17 of 18) [CW-1727/2015] order dated 27.1.2014, and agreed to file a representation, he had accepted that his claim be considered by the respondents and thus, had abandoned his claim or right, which he could lawfully and legitimately urge and insist before the court of law.
The orders passed by the court that the representation be decided, harm more a litigant and the acceptance of such decision by the litigant operate to the peril of the litigant, as filing of representation and delay caused to decide the same, will neither cure delay and latches nor shall revive the cause of action, which became stale being beyond period of limitation.
Merely because the representation was not decided within the stipulated period, this Court relying upon the case of Tara Chand Bhati vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1998 (4) SCT 521, cannot hold that panel of selected candidates shall remain valid for indefinite period.
In Sanjay Bhattacharya vs. Union of India & Ors, 1997 (s) SCT 339, it has been held that merely because name of the petitioner had surfaced in the Reserve/Waiting List, it does not confer any right of appointment in him.
Since no indefesible right has accrued to the petitioner, because his name had surfaced in the Reserve/Waiting List, the State Government cannot be denied their right to scout for the best talent or human resource, which is now available after lapse of four years.
Thus, no fault can be found with the action of the respondent RPSC not to operate Reserve/Waiting List, after specified period as it is always better that the individual good (18 of 18) [CW-1727/2015] should make way for larger good of the society and citizens must now get better homeopath after issuance of fresh advertisement.
Since the petitioner is not having any indefesible or vested right to insist that the State must fill the vacancy from Reserve/Waiting List, which was prepared four years ago, on 14.12.2012, there is no merit in the present petition, and the same is dismissed.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)J. Mak/-