1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.1329/2002. : : Shriniwas Beniwal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 5.1.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.Amardeep Atwal with Mr.Prakash Thakuria for the petitioners. Mr.S.N.Kumawat for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by the four petitioners with the grievance that even though their names were mentioned in the reserve list at Serial Nos.3, 5, 8 & 10, but the respondents have illegally refused to provide them appointment on the post of Legal Assistant. Shri Dinesh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners referred to Government letter dated 6.5.1999 and argued that Government had returned the reserve list because the originally advertised 19 posts were increased to 61 posts, yet the respondents have not given appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to circular dated 19.7.2003 according to which the petitioners were entitled to 2 be appointed. It was argued that eleven persons did not join and all the petitioners are within these eleven posts which had fallen vacant because of non-joining of eleven persons. Learned counsel submitted that according to the circular dated 19.7.2001, there was no provision for sending back of reserve list and the petitioners ought to have been given appointment. The respondents have clarified in the reply to the writ petition that in fact the reserve list was requisitioned but it was sent back to RPSC because only five posts had became available to the respondents and in the mean time, five posts were abolished in different department and thus there remained no post for making appointment out of the reserve list. For one of the candidates, it is contended that he resigned because he was selected in Rajasthan Judicial Services. But the circular of the Government dated 19.7.2001 further provides that reserve list would be operated only for the vacancy which was available due to non-joining of the selected candidates and not for the posts for which were not available. Learned counsel for the petitioner however disputed the position and reiterated the submission that 11 posts were available after non-joining of selected persons. 3 Having examined the aforesaid arguments and perused the material available on record, I find that whatever 11 posts have became available due to non-joining of the selected candidates or there were only five such posts and those five posts were abolished and therefore, there was no occasion for appointment of the petitioner, which has become a contentious issue between the parties. This factual controversy cannot be decided otherwise when the respondents have asserted on oath that only five posts were available due to non-joining. The version of the respondents cannot be disbelieved on mere ipso dixit of the petitioners. Circular on which reliance has been placed although does not provide for return of the waiting list but even if that is accepted, as a matter of fact that the reserve list was initially requisitioned by the Government, factual position still will have to be examined in the light of reasonableness of the stand taken by the respondents. The respondents have asserted that only five posts became available and correspondingly five posts were abolished, no mandamus can possibly be issued directing the respondents to give appointment to the petitioners. Even otherwise, the petitioners are not able to show any candidate lower to them in merit has been appointed. 4 I, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.28.