Jodhpur, Oct. 11 -- The Rajasthan high court has ruled that vacancies arising when candidates resign after joining posts filled through a completed recruitment process are fresh vacancies and cannot ordinarily be filled from the waiting list prepared for the original selection. A division bench of chief justice Sanjay K Agrawal and justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu on Thursday dismissed a petition by 31 candidates seeking appointment as System Assistants. The plea sought directions to the high court administration to operate the reserve list and appoint them against vacancies arising from resignations. The petitioners had participated in the recruitment process initiated through an advertisement dated December 18, 2023. The result was declared on February 11, 2025, with a consolidated merit list of 230 candidates and a reserve/waiting list. The petitioners argued that vacancies created by non-joining and subsequent resignations should be filled by appointing candidates from the waiting list. Their counsel submitted that 68 candidates had resigned after joining their posts and contended that the petitioners were entitled to consideration against the resulting vacancies. Opposing the plea, counsel for the high court administration submitted that 220 of the 230 selected candidates had joined, while 10 did not. After their appointments were cancelled following non-joining, nine candidates were offered appointments from the reserve list, of whom five joined. The administration argued vacancies caused by resignations after joining were fresh vacancies and could not be filled from the waiting list of the earlier recruitment. The bench relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Sudesh Kumar Goyal v. State of Haryana, which dealt with a similar issue. Quoting the Supreme Court, the bench noted: "However, if one of the selected candidates joins and then resigns, it gives rise to a fresh vacancy which could not have been filled up without issuing a proper advertisement and following the fresh selection process." The bench said the legal position was clear once all vacancies notified under the original advertisement had been filled. "In the present case, it is not in dispute that the 68 candidates in question had joined pursuant to the selection process and subsequently resigned. Thus, the vacancies arising on account of their resignation are fresh vacancies and cannot be treated as vacancies remaining unfilled pursuant to the original advertisement," the court observed....