1 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.675/2008 Dr. Shri Narayan Basna Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Judgment :: July 24, 2008. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Babu Lal Gupta for the appellant(s). Mr. S.N. Kumawat for the RPSC. Mr. S.S. Sharma Govt.Counsel for respondents no.1 & 2. *** Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 12.9.2007 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant in which he had prayed for direction to the respondent-Rajasthan Public Service Commission (in short, 'the RPSC') to forward his name to the State Government for appointment on the post of Senior Demonstrator (Forensic Medicine). The appellant had applied for appointment against the post aforesaid pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent-RPSC on 16.2.1999. The RPSC sent the select list to the Government on 8.6.2000; pursuant to which appointments were made. But out of six notified posts, when three selected candidates did not join, requisition was sent by the government to the RPSC on 7.12.2000 for sending names contained in the reserved list. Subsequently, however, the government decided not to make appointment from the reserved list and withdrew the said requisition vide subsequent letter dated 8.3.2001. Mr. Babu Lal Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the government having once summoned the names from the reserve list, could not 2 thereafter withdrew the requisition. The appellant had acquired right of appointment pursuant to his inclusion in the reserved list and according to the provisions of Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962, the RPSC had no choice but to forward the names of the candidates included in the reserved list to the government if the government wanted to do so, the RPSC was therefore, not justified in seeking clarification from the government by its letter dated 12.12.2000 which eventually led to withdrawal of the requisition itself. The learned counsel in support of his submissions cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dir.SCTI for Med. Sci & Tech. and Anr.Vs. M. Pushkaran, AIR 2008 SC 559 and Sheo Shyam & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Ors., 2004(2) SLR 1. Mr. S.N. Kumawat, the learned counsel for the RPSC opposed the appeal and submitted that even though the government sent the requisition but when clarification was sought for by the RPSC pointing out that four names available in reserve list belong to different categories of general, OBC, SC and ST respectively, therefore, which name should be sent against which roster point. The government in these circumstances decided not to make appointment out of the reserved list and, therefore, withdrew the requisition. It was the prerogative of the government whether or not to make appointment out of the reserve list and the government has done so on valid consideration. Learned counsel for the RPSC in this connection cited the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Dr. Kalpana Kumari Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1052/2007 decided on 30.1.2008). 3 We have gone through the impugned judgment as also examined the relevant record. On perusal of the letter dated 12.12.2000 which was forwarded by RPSC to the government in response to its requisition asking to forward the names from reserve list, we find that the RPSC pointed out to the government that out of the total four names available with it in the reserve list, one candidate each belong to General, OBC, SC and ST category and therefore, it should be clarified as to against which roster appoint the names have to be forwarded. The government, faced with this situation, decided not to make any appointment from the reserve list and, therefore, withdrew the requisition. Rule 20 of the Rules of 1996, the very same rule relevant for the present case, fell for consideration of the Division Bench of this Court where an argument was raised that the RPSC had no choice but to forward names of the waiting list once requisition is received by it from the government, the argument was repelled by the Division Bench in the following terms :- “As per Rule 20, the Commission is required to prepare a list of the candidates found suitable for appointment to the posts concerned arranged in the order of merit and forward the same to the Government. While preparing the list, it is open to the Commission to prepare a reserve list of suitable candidates to the extent of 50% of the advertised vacancies. Upon receipt of the requisition form the State Government, the Commission is required to recommend in the order of merit to the Government within six months from the date on which the original list has been forwarded. The reserve list talked of in Rule 20 is meant for the purpose of unfilled advertised vacancies if the requisition is received within six months from the date the original list was forwarded. Rule 20 does not operate in the case of requisition for additional posts. Admittedly since in the present case all the three advertised posts were filled, Rule 20 too, is not breached by the Commission by not responding to the requisition dated 18.8.2005 and 1.9.2005. The action of the Commission cannot be said to be legally flawed.” 4 In our view, when the RPSC sought for clarification from the government raising valid points and if the government on reconsideration of the matter, decided not to make appointment from the reserve list, its action cannot be termed either as arbitrary or unreasonable. In any case, this Court cannot require the government by issuance of mandamus to make appointment out of the reserve list. The judgments on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the appellant, are distinguishable on facts as in none of those cases, issues which have been raised herein, were considered and decided. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J. (NARAYAN ROY),CJ. Skant/-