1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 909/2009 Smt. Rita Purohit Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others ......... Date of Order : 09/02/2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. Sunil Joshi, for the petitioners. BY THE COURT By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No.2 to forthwith send the requisition to the R.P.S.C., Ajmer for forwarding the name of the petitioner from the reserve list for appointment on the post of Lecturer, Commercial Art and discontinuing the ad hoc temporary appointment to those persons who have been temporarily appointed on adhoc basis. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2 It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's name appears in reserve list for appointment on the post of Lecturer and the respondent No.2 is not requisitioning her name from the respondent RPSC and appointing her on the post of lecturer. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Umadevi (3) and Others (2006) 4 SCC 1 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- “Persons who get employed, without the following of a regular procedure or even through the backdoor or on daily wages, have been approaching the courts, seeking directions to make them permanent in their posts and to prevent regular recruitment to the posts concerned. The Courts have not always kept the legal aspects in mind and have occasionally even stayed the regular process of employment being set in motion and in some cases even directed that these illegal, irregular or improper entrants be absorbed into service. A class of employment which can only be called “litigious employment”, has risen like a phoenix seriously impairing the constitutional scheme. While directing that appointments, temporary or casual be regularised or made permanent, the courts are swayed by the fact that the person concerned has worked for some time and in some cases for a considerable length of time. Such an argument fails when tested on the touchstone of constitutionality and equality of opportunity enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. Merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be 3 entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquired any right.” It was further held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that on a survey of judgments of the Supreme Court on the point, the predominant view is seen to be that appointments made without following the due process or the rules for appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and that the court cannot direct their absorption or regularisation or re-engagement or making them permanent. Those decisions which run counter to the principles settled in this decision, or in which directions running counter to what has been held herein have been given, will stand denuded of their status as precedents. In the instant case, the respondent RPSC issued an advertisement for filling 5 vacancies of Lecturer, Commercial Art. The petitioner also applied for the said post and appeared in written examination and on passing the said written examination, she was called for interview. The petitioner did not find place within 5 number as there had been only 5 vacant posts, however, according to the learned counsel for the 4 petitioner, her name finds place in the reserve list and on the basis of such reserve list, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No.2 to requisition her name from respondent RPSC for such appointment. It is not the case of the petitioner that the five persons who were in merit and selected against five vacant posts have not joined or any one of them has not joined. Since there had been only five vacant posts and the persons who were more meritorious than the petitioner and stood higher in merit and selected, have joined and thereby filling the five vacant posts. In the circumstances, therefore, in my view, no such direction as sought for can be given to the respondent No.2 to requisition the petitioner's name from RPSC and appoint her when there being no vacant post in view of the advertisement dated 11.05.2007. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp 5 S.B.Civil Misc. Stay Petition No. 1728/09 In S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 909/09 Date of Order : 09/02/2009 HON'BLE MR. H.R.PANWAR,J. Mr. Sunil Joshi, for the petitioner. Since the writ petition itself has been dismissed, the stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp