Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mukh Ram vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 4 July, 2017
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 584 / 2017
Mukh Ram S/o Shri Hajari Ram, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village
Badopal, PO Badopal, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of Rural
& Development and Panchayati Raj Government of Rajasthan,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Chief Executive Officer Cum Controller of Examination, Zila
Parishad, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Deepak Nehra.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA
Order 04/07/2017
1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the judgment dated 9th February 2017 which has been followed by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order dated 8th March, 2017, we find no merit in the appeal.
2. Suffice is to highlight that the decision of the learned Single Judge in the earlier litigation concerning appointment of teacher Grade-III pursuant to the advertisement dated 24 February expressly carved out a caveat concerning those candidates who were already given appointment notwithstanding revised answer- key being drawn up and if strictly implemented some of them being liable to be removed from service on account of obtaining (2 of 2) [SAW-584/2017] lesser marks. In the earlier litigation said appointments were not set aside on account of fact that the candidates were working for long.
3. The grievance of the petitioner at the second round of litigation was that candidates having lesser marks as per the earlier merit list were working. The lesser marks were with reference to the revised answer key.
4. The learned Single Judge has noted that the earlier decision of the learned single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench as also Supreme Court.
5. Candidates as per the original merit list were given appointment. This was pursuant to the model answer-key. As the answer got revised fresh merit list was drawn. Some candidates who were higher in the merit in the first merit get less marks in the second. But, in view of the fact that in the earlier round of the litigation the appointment of the said candidates was expressly saved, the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge cannot make any grievance with respect to appointments made pursuant to the original merit list drawn up.
6. The writ appeal is dismissed.
(RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA)J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)CJ. Ashutosh