Bhupendra Kumar And Ors vs State (Panchayati Raj Dep )Ors on 19 December, 2013

[Cites 15, Cited by 2]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Bhupendra Kumar And Ors vs State (Panchayati Raj Dep )Ors on 19 December, 2013

Bench: Mn Bhandari

    

 
 
 

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORDER 
SB Civil Writ Petition No.15788/2013
Hemendra Kumar Jangid & ors versus State of Rajasthan & anr

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15777/2013
Teena Kumawat versus State of Rajasthan & ors

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No.15781/2013
Jitendra Singh versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15791/2013
Puran Mal Swami & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15844/2013
Soniya Verma versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15856/2013
Vijendra Singh & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15867/2013
Rakesh Kumar Meena & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15877/2013
Mangi Lal Yadav & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No.15879 /2013
Haresh Saraswat versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15882/2013
Indira Poonia & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15907/2013
Gajanand Yadav & ors  versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15922/2013
Jitendra Singh versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15923/2013
Jitendra Kumar & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15924/2013
Mukesh Kumar Saini versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15925/2013
Hemraj Saini versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15963/2013
Mohan Murari Katara & anr versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15965/2013
Pooja Bhagchandani versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15966/2013
Sarita Kumari versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15967/2013
Rashmi Kashyap & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No.15989/2013
Sidhram Choudhary & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15993/2013
Priti Gurjar & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No.15994 /2013
Seema Yadav versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15999/2013
Ashok Kumar & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16010/2013
Bhatti Lal Meena & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16014/2013
Vijay Singh Yadav & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16018/2013
Suresh Kumar Bairwa & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16072/2013
Poonam Chouhan versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16087/2013
Suman Bajya versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No.16088 /2013
Babu Lal Saini versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16090/2013
Mukesh Kumar & anr versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16091/2013
Bhupendra Kumar & anr versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16092/2013
Sita Ram versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16093/2013
Sanjay Kumar & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No.16094 /2013
Manoj Kumar & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16095/2013
Vinod Kumar Meena & anr versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16097/2013
Soniya & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16098/2013
Ishwar Kumar Soni & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16100/2013
Hari Kishan versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16101/2013
Radha Kumawat & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16109/2013
Shri Krishn Awtar Saini versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16112/2013
Kamla Yadav & ors versus State of Rajasthan & anr

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16114/2013
Madan Lal Meena & ors versus State of Rajasthan & anr 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16115/2013
Jitendra Singh Ola versus State of Rajasthan & anr

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16116/2013
Ajeet Kumar & ors versus State of Rajasthan & anr 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No.16117 /2013
Devi Sahai Banshiwal & anr versus State of Rajasthan & anr

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16118/2013
Manish Mittal & anr versus State of Rajasthan & anr 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16119/2013
Okesh Kumar & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors  

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16121/2013
Sneha Nemiyaversus State of Rajasthan & anr

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16126/2013
Ami Lal versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16127/2013
Suman Gahlot  & anr versus State of Rajasthan & anr 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16128/2013
Sanjay Kumar Yadav versus State of Rajasthan & ors

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16129 /2013
Kataria Smita versus State of Rajasthan & ors

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16130/2013
Chandra Shekhar Sharma & anr versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16137/2013
Prem Chand Kumawat & ors versus State of Rajasthan & anr

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16138/2013
Balraj & ors versus State of Rajasthan & anr

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16139/2013
Pradeep Kumar Sharma & ors versus State of Rajasthan & anr

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16140/2013
Ashok Kumar Saini & ors versus State of Rajasthan & anr 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16141/2013
Rudmal Bunkar & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16152/2013
Bharat Singh versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16154/2013
Sunil Kumar Gupta versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No.16155 /2013
Rekha Sharma  & anr versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16157/2013
Ajay Sharma & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16158/2013
Anuradha Sharma & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16160/2013
Suman Kumari & anr versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16162/2013
Hitesh Kanwar & ors versus State of Rajasthan & anr 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No.16163 /2013
Jitendra Dhabai & ors versus State of Rajasthan & anr  

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No.16164/2013
Nand Ram Meena & ors versus State of Rajasthan & anr 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16165/2013
Subhash Chand Barkesiya & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16166/2013
Ram Chandra Singh versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16167/2013
Sumitra versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16168/2013
Shankar Lal Jangir & anr versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16179/2013
Krishna Soni & anr versus State of Rajasthan & anr 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16181/2013
Sumer Singh versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16183/2013
Shiv Kumar Sukariya versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16184/2013
Sunita Choudhary versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16186/2013
Bhagwati Kumari & anr versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No.16201/2013
Raj Kumar Disania & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16202/2013
Vishnu Tailor versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16203/2013
Purshottam Gurjar versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16204/2013
Krishna Avtar Lakshkar versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16205/2013
Kamlesh Kumar Prajapat versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16206/2013
Rajesh Kumar Meena versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16207/2013
Sunita Rani versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No.16208 /2013
Lokesh Sharma versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No.16209 /2013
Sitaram Gurjar versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16213/2013
Dinesh Kumar versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16214/2013
Praveen Yadav versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16217/2013
Jaipal & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No.16218 /2013
Prahlad Sahai Jat versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16219/2013
Praveen Pareek versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16222/2013
Mukesh Kumar Surela versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16223/2013
Rekha Saini versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16225/2013
Sunil & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16226/2013
Indrajeet Yadav & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16227/2013
Manisha Malav & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16228/2013
Abdul Alim Khan versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16229/2013
Jai Singh & anr versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16242/2013
Rekha Verma & anr versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16262/2013
Om Prakash Fageria versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16267/2013
Kaila Devi versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16268/2013
Rajesh Kumar Sharma & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16271/2013
Rajendra Singh Meel & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16273/2013
Ved Prakash Sharma versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16275/2013
Mahendra Kumar Harijan versus Secretary to Govt. & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No.16276/2013
Ram Kumar Yadav versus Secretary to Govt  & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No.16277 /2013
Kuldeep Singh versus Secretary to Govt. & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No.16278/2013
Om Prakash & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No.16279 /2013
Shiv Raj Suthar versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No.16280/2013
Siya Ram Meena & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No.16281/2013
Gulab Chand Lodha & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16282/2013
Aruna Gurjar versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16284/2013
Prena Shekhawat versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16289/2013
Rajendra Jat versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16291/2013
Shiv Singh Dhakad and Anr. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16294/2013
Sohana Ram versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16295/2013
Shobha Sharma versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16297/2013
Rajveer Singh and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16299/2013
Surendra Kumar Jhajharia and Anr. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16301/2013
Asha Kumari Bagari versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16302/2013
Ajay Pal Singh and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16303/2013
Yogesh Kumar and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16305/2013
Sohan Lal Kumawat and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16307/2013
Inderjeet Singh Jat and Anr. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16308/2013
Kamal Kumar Meena and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16309/2013
Nidhi Khandelwal and Anr. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16311/2013
Mamta Mali versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16312/2013
Jyoti Meena versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16314/2013
Manju Yadav and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16315/2013
Rakesh Kumar Vashanav and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16317/2013
Rohit Dagur versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16320/2013
Manoj Kumar Choudhary and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16321/2013
Mahesh Yogi and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16324/2013
Deeksha Sharma versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16325/2013
Manish Meena and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16327/2013
Jitendra Verma versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16330/2013
Papita and Anr. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16332/2013
Rishabh Dixit and Anr. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16338/2013
Surendra Kumar Bagaria and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16340/2013
Inder Pal Kantia versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16341/2013
Subhash Chand Jat versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16342/2013
Tulsi Ram Tailor versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16343/2013
Hari Singh versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16344/2013
Pragati Jain versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16345/2013
Praveen Kumar Pareek versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16346/2013
Surendra Kumar and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16347/2013
Indra Singh and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16348/2013
Raj Kumar versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16349/2013
Rajveer Singh Kulhari and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16350/2013
Taruna Yadav and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16351/2013
Yogesh Chandra Vashistha Anr. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 
 
SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16352/2013
Mukesh Kumar Bhagwat and Anr. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16354/2013
Sunil Kumar and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16355/2013
Toshif Ahmed Ansari versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16356/2013
Ram Niwas Gurjar and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16357/2013
Duleechand and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16358/2013
Kaml Singh Dagur and Anr. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16359/2013
Chain Swaroop Panwar and Ors.versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16360/2013
Vinod Kumar Balai versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16363/2013
Bharat Kumar Mehta and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16365/2013
Vijay Laxmi Hada and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16366/2013
Pankaj Kumar Chippa and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16368/2013
Manju Meena versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16369/2013
Rakesh Kumar versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16372/2013
Sushil Kumar Jatav and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16374/2013
Dilip Kumar Bairwa versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16375/2013
Nanchhu Ram Saini versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16376/2013
Manohar Lal Yadav and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16377/2013
Jitendra Kumar Verma versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16378/2013
Suresh Chand Jatav versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16379/2013
Naresh Kumar Meena and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16380/2013
Jugal Kishore Sharma and Anr. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16381/2013
Devendra Mundel and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16382/2013
Manish Raja versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16383/2013
Vimla Choudhary versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16399/2013
Abdul Rahid and Anr. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16400/2013
Indra Kumar Meena and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16402/2013
Sanjay Kumar Meena versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16403/2013
Ganesh Ram Meena versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16405/2013
Mamta Kumari versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16413/2013
Vijendra Singh and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16414/2013
Bhoopendra Singh versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16415/2013
Yogita Shekhawat versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16417/2013
Mast Ram Meena and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16422/2013
Sarita Yadav and Anr. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16423/2013
Kamal Singh Meena versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16424/2013
Gaurav Kumar Adddania Anr. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16426/2013
Mamta Sharma versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16428/2013
Rajendra Singh Yadav and Anr. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16430/2013
Rafiq Mohammad and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16431/2013
Mohammad Sadik versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16432/2013
Mukhram versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16433/2013
Geeta Kumar Meena & anr versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16434/2013
Amod Shrivastava and anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16435/2013
Rati Ram versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16436/2013
Maya Pacherwal versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16437/2013
Alka Jhorar and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16438/2013
Arjun Lal Jat and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16439/2013
Rameshwar Prasad Bobasya ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16441/2013
Pushpa Digarwal versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16442/2013
Surendra Kumar and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 


SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16443/2013
Suresh Meena and anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16444/2013
Sayar Bano versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 


SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16447/2013
Amit Kumar Saran versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16448/2013
Hukam Singh versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16449/2013
Shubha Ram versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16451/2013
Sajid Rahim versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16454/2013
Pinky Tanwar versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16455/2013
Sadhna and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16457/2013
Ashok Kumar Meghwal versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16458/2013
Hanuman Prasad Meghwal and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16459/2013
Atmaram Gurjar and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16460/2013
Saroj Kumar and anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16461/2013
Samta Meena versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16462/2013
Sudesh Kumar Verma and anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16463/2013
Sultan Singh and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16465/2013
Arati Meena versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16468/2013
Ramawatar versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16469/2013
Ramesh Chand Meena and anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16470/2013
Ajay Mathur versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16472/2013
Jalendra Kumar Meena versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16473/2013
Rakesh Kumar versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16474/2013
Vandana Kumari Gupta and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16477/2013
Mamta Khateek versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16478/2013
Raj Kumar Choudhary and anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16479/2013
Sandhya versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16481/2013
Rakesh Singh Rajpoot and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16483/2013
Deshraj Arya and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

 AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16484/2013
Tejpal Singh and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16485/2013
Kamlesh Kumar Meena versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16486/2013
Heera Lal Bairwa versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16487/2013
Lokendra Gurjar and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16488/2013
Deen Dayal Sharma and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16489/2013
Nawal Kishore Mahana and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16490/2013
Smt Munita Meena versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16491/2013
Ambika Dhabhai versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16492/2013
Charan Singh Meena versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16493/2013
Hemraj Merota and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16494/2013
Shyam Sunder Verma versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16495/2013
Manju Saini and ors versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16496/2013
Babu Lal Jat versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16497/2013
Ashok Kumar Meena and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16498/2013
Indu Bala  Garg and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16499/2013
Ram Dayal Meena and anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16500/2013
Nissar Mohammad and anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16501/2013
Sharmila Gouri versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16502/2013
Santosh Kumar Sain and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16503/2013
Alpana Jain and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16504/2013
Madan Lal Bhamu versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16506/2013
Mahesh Kumar Verma and anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16507/2013
Ram Naresh Meena and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16509/2013
Motilal Meena versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16510/2013
Suresh Kumar Buldak versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16511/2013
Keerti Saini versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16512/2013
Poonam Swarnkar versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16513/2013
Poonam and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16514/2013
Aditi Shandilya versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16515/2013
Babulal Bairwa and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16517/2013
Divya Sharma and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16518/2013
Rakesh Kumar ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16519/2013
Varun Pareek and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16520/2013
Sukhdev Meena versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16521/2013
Ram Gopal Dhakar versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16522/2013
Pradhan Choudhary versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16523/2013
Rituraj  Sharma versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16524/2013
Nihal Singh versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16526/2013
Suresh Kumar Dukariya ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16527/2013
Bharti and anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16530/2013
Anjana Sharma and anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16531/2013
Leena Jarwal versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16533/2013
Data Ram Gurjar versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16534/2013
Kalpana Sharma and ors.versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16535/2013
Sunita and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16538/2013
Rameshwar Prasad and anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16543/2013
Sanwarmal Jat versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16546/2013
Neeraj Kumar Yadav and anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16550/2013
Rajendra Kumar and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16570/2013
Priya versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. /165712013
Usha Ujjwal and anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16572/2013
Sudesh Kumar and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16585/2013
Smt. Pushpa Rani versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16586/2013
Pawan Kumar Sharma and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16591/2013
Deepak Kumar versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16594/2013
Smt. Arti Sharma and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16596/2013
Barkha Gangawat versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16600/2013
Neetu Sharma and anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16606/2013
Anju Meena versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16613/2013
Saroj Kumari versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16617/2013
Surendra Kumar Bairwa versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16620/2013
Indu Bala Sharma and anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16623/2013
Bijendra Kumar Mahala and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16624/2013
Krishna Meena versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16625/2013
Smt. Vinod Jangid versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16629/2013
Siyaram Nat versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16689/2013
Nida Masoom and anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16695/2013
Anita Kumawat and ors versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No.16731/2013
Sushila Rawat and anr versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16734/2013
Naresh Kumar versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16739/2013
Laxmi Devi versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16742/2013
Sheela Sharma versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16743/2013
Shiv Narayan Kumawat and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16744/2013
Harish Kumar Sharma versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16748/2013
Brij Pal Sharma versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16752/2013
Vandana Sharma versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16754/2013
Sushila Mourya and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16762/2013
Ram Chandra Meena anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16767/2013
Raju Singh and anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16768/2013
Ms. Nisha Singh Palawat anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16772/2013
Farzana versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16775/2013
Meena Goyal versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16781/2013
Ramekesh Meena versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16786/2013
Mool  Chand Pingoliya and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16809/2013
Sarita Sharma versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16811/2013
Jitendra Kumar Sharma versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16829/2013
Ritesh Kumar Agarwal versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16839/2013
Babulal versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16840/2013
Arvinash Yadav versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16841/2013
Asha Kumari versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16852/2013
Sunil Kumar Sharma versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16866/2013
Mukut Bihari Dvivedi and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16867/2013
Banwari Lal Gurjar versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16868/2013
Pushpendra Kumar Sharma versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16872/2013
Jasvinder Singh versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16873/2013
Yogesh Kumar and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16874/2013
Rekha Jhala versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16875/2013
Ramalakhan Meena  versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16876/2013
Sufiya Sultana versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16883/2013
Shamin Bano versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16893/2013
Lalit Mohan Saini versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16901/2013
Pinky Meena versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16922/2013
Neetu Sahu versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16935/2013
Chanchal Joshi versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16940/2013
Mahaveer Meena versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16943/2013
Rameshwar Prasad Bairwa versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16952/2013
Puja Kumari versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16955/2013
Rajni Bala Garg versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16986/2013
Rajesh Kumar versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 17021/2013
Sanjy Choudhary versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 17060/2013
Gajendra Singh versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 17064/2013
Ramjilal Kumawat and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 


AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 17116/2013
Vinod Kumar Gurjar versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 17118/2013
Priyanka Divedi and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 17121/2013
Harish Kumar Sharma versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 17166/2013
Firoza Khan versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 17205/2013
Smeena Verma versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 17398/2013
Pratap Singh versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 17399/2013
Saroj Kuldeep versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 17528/2013
Manju Ranawan and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 

AND 

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 17533/2013
Chanchal Koli versus State of Rajasthan and ors. 



AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16516/2013
Sanju Sharma versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 18825/2013
Daya Shankar Kumawat versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 18819/2013
Mahendra Kumar versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 18809/2013
Preetam Meena versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16537/2013
Sonia Patan versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 18167/2013
Lalita Prajapat versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 17431/2013
Poonam Yadav versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 17019/2013
Vijay Jhajhariya versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 18918/2013
Shama Mansuri versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No.19008 /2013
Neetu Kumari versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16212/2013
Rajendra Singh versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16827/2013
Pankaj Upadhyaya versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16774/2013
Suraj Bhan Singh  versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16965/2013
Dinesh Kumar Chandel  versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 17565/2013
Mahendra Pal Atal  versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 17935/2013
Santosh Palawat  versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No.18048/2013
Vimla Jangid  versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No.16353/2013
Gopal Lal Teli  versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 20333/2013
Kavita versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

AND

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 17887/2013
Vijay Kumar versus State of Rajasthan & ors 

Date of Order :					   19th December, 2013					           
PRESENT 
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI
Mr Vigyan Shah 
Mr Ram Pratap Saini 
Mr Pradeep Mathur
Mr Vijay Pathak
Mr Vinod Singhal 
Mr SS Naruka
Mr Ashwini Jaiman
Mr Anoop Dhand
Mr Tanveer Ahmed
Mr Sunil Kumar Jain 
Mr RD Meena
Mr Gajender Sharma
Mr Raj Kumar Sharma 
Mr Manish Choudhary
Mr Suresh Kumar 
Mr CP Sharma
Mr SD Sharma
Mr Samay Singh
Mr Ram Manohar Sharma
Mr SK Pareek
Mr Shashank Agrawal
Mr Sumit Khandelwal
Mr Sandeep Garssa
Mr Raj Kumar Saini 
Mr Dinesh Sharma
Mr JM Saxena
Mr Sunil Kumar Singodiya
Mr Udai Bhan Singh 
Mr Ashish Saksena
Mr JR Choudhary
Mr MI Abbasi
Mr Naveen Dhuwan 
Mr Neeraj Joshi
Mr Tarun Choudhary
Mr Ram Babu Sharma
Mr Ramavtar Bochalya
Mr RS Bhardwaj
Mr Harsh Saini 
Mr Sanjay Mehrishi
Mr OP Mishra
Mr DK Bhardwaj
Mr Khalid Mehmood 
Mr Banwari Sharma 
Mr Jeetendra Kumar Sharma
Mr FR Meena
Mr Prahlad Sharma
Mr Kailash Kataria
Mr Govind Gupta
Mr Rajendra Yadav
Mr Mohit Gupta
Mr Manish Sharma
Mr Raghunandan Sharma
Mr Vinod Kumar Gupta 
Mr Raj Kumar Goyal 
Mr Amit Singh Shekhawat
Mr NK Singhal
Mr DS Dhariwal
Mr Rajesh Bhamboo
Mr Vijay Punia
Mr Sanjay Khedar
Mr Rameshwar Sharma
Mr  Mukesh Bijarnia
Mr Hemendra Goyal
Mr Rajendra Yadav
Mr Praveen Sharma
Mr Kailash Sharma
Mr Amit Kumar Gupta
Mr Balveer Singh Beniwal
Mr SN Meena
Mr Hoshiya Singh Arya
Mr Nidhi Khandelwal
Mr TL Pandey
Mr Raj Kumar Kasana
Mr SK Beniwal
Mr Dharmendra Agrawal
Mr Mahendra Nahar
Mr Rajeev Sogarwal
Mr RB Mathur
Mr RK Saini
Mr Manoj Avasthi
Mr Arvind Kumar Arora
Mr RK Gauttam
Mr Vijay Dutt Sharma 
Mr Vikas Kabra
Mr Poonam Chand Bhandari
Mr Praveen Balwada
Mr Himanshu Jain
Mr Pradeep Malik
Mr Bharat Yadav 
Mr Girish Khandelwal
Mr Jaideep Singh Rathore
Mr HR Kumawat
Mr Rahul Choudhary
Mr Ravindra Tomar
Mr Jitendra Bajaj
Mr Rajendra Soni
Mr Lalit Sharma
Mr Kartar Singh 
Mr Neeraj K Tiwari
Mr Sajid Ali
Mr Rajendra Prasad Sharma
Mr Ajay Gupta
Mr Mukesh Kumar Saini
Mr Kapil Gupta
Mr Aditya Mathur
Mr Vijendra Kumar Yadav
Mr Dheeraj Tripathi
Mr Kuldeep Aswal
Mr Yogesh Singhal 
Mr VK Sharma
Mr Timan Singh  for petitioners

Mr SN Kumawat, Additional Advocate General  for respondents  
BY THE COURT:

Reportable The bunch of writ petitions involves common question of law thus were heard and decided by this common judgment.

The respondents issued an advertisement for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr III (Level-I and II). The advertisement was issued at the district level by respective Zila Parishad. The petitioners applied for the above posts and after remaining successful, were given appointment. The respondents have now issued an order dated 30.8.2013 at annexure-6 in CW 15788/2013 which provides for an action of termination of services of those candidates who do not find place in the merit list after revision of result. The revision of the merit list is due to correction in the answer key wherein certain questions were deleted or answers were modified. It was in view of the fact that after declaration of result, a controversy was raised for correctness of the questions and answers. This court issued directions on the respondents to send the matter to the expert committee. The respondents, in compliance of the order, sought opinion of the expert committee and found certain questions and answers to be incorrect. They accordingly revised the merit list. On account of revision of the merit list, it seems, petitioners are not finding place therein thus apprehending termination or have been terminated.

Initially, writ petitions were filed when only order dated 30.8.2013 was passed. Few writ petitions were filed after passing of the orders of termination. This court passed interim orders in favour of the petitioners in reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar & ors etc versus State of Bihar & ors etc [(2013) 4 SCC 690].

Learned counsel for petitioners submit that selection for the post of Teacher Gr III (Level-I and II) were conducted by the respondents. The merit list was prepared based on the criteria laid down by them which include weightage of marks for Rajasthan Teacher Eligibility Test (for short 'RTET') to the extent of 20%. The RTET was conducted in pursuance of the amendment in the Regulations by the National Council for Teacher Education (for short 'the NCTE'). As per Regulations, one is required to pass TET for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr III. The minimum qualifying marks therein are 60% for general category candidates and, for reserve category candidates, concession was provided though the matter in that regard is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is in view of the judgment of the Division Bench holding candidate to be ineligible for appointment unless he possesses 60% marks in RTET. Thus, while making appointment, it was made subject to final outcome of pending litigation.

After appointment, petitioners are serving in respective Zila Parishad, however, due to litigation and order of this court, result has been revised holding either certain questions or their answers to be incorrect. It was after getting report from expert committee. The revised cut off marks ousted the petitioners from merit as they are now having less marks than cut off.

It is further stated that revision of marks exist in the RTET also. It is in view of the fact that a dispute regarding certain questions and their answers was raised in respect of RTET also. Therein, again, the matter was sent to the expert committee and, on getting the report, result of the RTET was revised, wherein, few candidates, who earlier remained successful have been declared unsuccessful and, at the same time, other candidates who earlier remained unsuccessful are now declared successful. The termination of the petitioners has been effected due to revision of marks of RTET also.

Learned counsel submit that revision of answer key and marks was without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, more so when it was going to result in their termination.

At this stage, learned counsel submit that they are not questioning the expert committee report and correction of the answer key though issue aforesaid has been raised in the writ petitions but they are not pressing the same. The only issue is that revision of the merit should not result in termination of petitioners' services. It is stated that termination at this stage is going to cause ill consequences inasmuch as many petitioners were earlier working elsewhere. They resigned from their posts to join the services. If the termination is now given effect, then it will cause irreparable loss to them. It is apart from the fact that for the post of Teacher Gr III advertised by the respondents in the year 2013, petitioners could not apply being in service thus they are deprived even to apply for fresh selection. On that count also, equity lies in their favour. The respondents can accordingly reduce the number of vacancies so advertised now so as to accommodate the petitioners herein. The termination should not be otherwise given effect to in violation of principles of natural justice.

To support the arguments, learned counsel for petitioners have relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar & ors (supra). It is submitted that the controversy therein was similar to that involved in these cases. The petitioners are innocent persons. They are not instrumental either to set incorrect answer key or even questions therein. They did not obtain appointment by fraud or malpractice thus looking to all these facts, respondents should be restrained to effect termination of services of the petitioners.

The other judgment relied upon is in the case of Sabita Prasad & ors versus State of Bihar & ors [1992(1)PLJR62]. Therein, a prayer was made to oust those who were earlier appointed as Teachers but after the judgment of the High Court, could not find place in the merit list so as to continue in service. The High Court, though saved their appointment as they were not party to the litigation but then facts remained that even after change of result, the candidates continued in service.

The next judgment is in the bunch of writ petitions led by Suresh Kumar & ors versus RPSC & ors, SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15638/2012, decided on 15.12.2012 by this court. Therein, while deciding the bunch of writ petitions, the appointment of the Teachers were saved even though change of the marks in the subject of General knowledge was allowed. Same is the position herein.

In the case of Ramesh Chand versus RSRTC & ors, SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3600/2012, decided on 30.7.2012, this court took the same view where again there was expert committee report which found certain questions/ answers to be incorrect.

In the case of P Shiva versus The Union of India (UOI), Represented by the Secretary to Government, Ministry of Railways & ors[2003(4)KCCRSN 344], Karnataka High Court restrained the respondents to demote the candidate earlier promoted even though they could not secure required marks for passing written test for viva-voce.

Learned counsel for petitioners lastly referred recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh & ors versus State of Chhatisgarh & ors, Civil Appeal No.5318-5319 of 2013 and connected matters, decided on 9.7.2013. Therein also, while permitting revision of the result, termination thereupon was not held to be proper and justified. A direction was given for fresh appointment without claim of seniority and other benefits.

Mr SN Kumawat, learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, contested the writ petitions and stated that the petitioners' selection was only on provisional basis. It was subject to decision and final outcome of various writ petitions thus petitioners have wrongly taken it to be an appointment on regular basis. The respondents' action is otherwise justified inasmuch as after declaration of the result and appointments, this court passed an order to send certain questions for expert opinion where the dispute was raised about their correctness. The expert opinion was sought and finding certain questions and answers to be incorrect, result was revised. The expert opinion has been questioned by few petitioners but without proper explanation and is not otherwise pressed thus the issue aforesaid is not required to be dealt with. The revision of the result is not only due to expert opinion on certain questions and answers to the question paper for the post of Teacher Gr III but in view of the revision of answer key of the RTET thus there are two sets of candidates. The change of result is going to effect nearly 287 candidates for Teacher Gr III (Level-I) and nearly 2455 candidates for Teacher Gr III (Level-II) thus number of candidates affected by the outcome of the revised result is not 10 or 20 but running in hundred, rather, in thousand.

Mr Kumawat submits that as per the NCTE Regulations, a candidate is required to obtain minimum qualifying marks in RTET to become eligible for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr III. After revision of result of the RTET, few candidates earlier declared successful became unsuccessful. They are not possessing required minimum qualifying marks of the respective category now, though as per decision of the Division Bench of this court in the case of State of Rajasthan & ors versus Vikas Kumar, everybody is required to possess 60% marks in RTET. The issue aforesaid is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The open category candidate having secured less than 60% marks in RTET is not eligible for appointment. For other categories, it should not be less than required for that category. They cannot be continued if become ineligible. Therefore, interference in the termination of such candidates would mean to continue services of the candidates though not eligible for appointment.

The second set of candidates are those who were earlier placed in the merit but due to revision of the result for the post of Teacher Gr III, they are not finding place in the merit, thus to give room to meritorious candidates, a decision was taken to terminate services of those who are having less marks. The continuance of the petitioners would deprive candidates having more marks and eligible to get appointment. It is due to definite number of posts. The effort of the respondents is to give room to those now placed in the merit list. The petitioners have hardly worked for 11 months or so and their appointment is otherwise on provisional basis thus termination thereupon cannot be said to be illegal.

In the case of Rajesh Kumar & ors (supra), the facts were quite different. If less meritorious candidates are continued then how meritorious candidates would be adjusted was not a question before the court. In the said case, appellants continued for a long period of 7 years thus decision aforesaid was rendered on its own facts.

The position of facts is similar in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh & ors (supra). Therein, the action of the respondents to re-evaluate the question and preparation of the merit afresh was held to be just and proper. Ousting of 26 appellants was however interfered on the ground of undue hardship and equities. A direction for fresh appointment was given. It is settled law that a direction to enlarge number of posts cannot be given by the court. In view of the above, if continuance of the petitioners is permitted, then number of such candidates being in thousands, it would deprive meritorious candidates to get appointment. The number of posts now advertised cannot be reduced only with a view to adjust the petitioners who are less meritorious affecting the right of those who have applied for the post in pursuance to new advertisement.

The judgment in the case of Sabita Prasad (supra) was also on different facts. Therein, as an outcome of the judgment of the High Court, a prayer was made to oust ineligible candidates. Therein, ousting of candidates was saved by the High Court itself as they were not party to the litigation thus the case was decided on its own facts.

Similar directions were given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VM Sunanda Reddy versus State of Andhra Pradesh [1995 Suppl (2) SCC 235. The position of fact is similar in the case of Suresh Kumar versus RPSC and in the case of Ramesh Chand versus RSRTC (supra).

In the case of Naresh Kumar Sharma versus State of Rajasthan & ors [2012 (1) WLC (Raj) 538] the appointments were saved by the High Court on its own facts and more specifically in absence of affected persons before the High Court.

It is further stated that there is nothing on record to show that petitioners were earlier working elsewhere and joined the services after resignation. The plea raised by the petitioners for their inability to apply for the posts in pursuance to the new recruitment is also incorrect inasmuch as the last date to apply was 4th September, 2013, whereas, impugned order was passed on 30.8.2013. The petitioners were having an opportunity to apply for the post of Teacher Gr III again, thus petitioners deserve no relief or sympathy in the facts and circumstances of the present case, rather, writ petitions may be dismissed.

I have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Undisputed facts of these writ petitions are that in pursuance to the selection and declaration of the result, petitioners were appointed on the post of Teacher Gr III (Leavel-I and II) respectively. The dispute regarding certain questions and their answers was raised by few candidates and, as per directions of this court, respondents constituted expert committee for its opinion and based on the expert opinion, result was revised. By virtue of which, petitioners' merit position has been altered and they are not finding place in the revised merit list. It is one part of factual aspects.

The other part is in regard to the RTET which is to be qualified by each candidate to become eligible for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr III. It is as per the NCTE Regulations. Before advertising the posts of Teacher Gr III, the State of Rajasthan through the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan conducted RTET. Therein a candidate was required to obtain minimum 60% marks to qualify it. Concession was allowed in favour of reserved category candidates, however, it was subject matter of litigation and is now pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The dispute regarding certain questions was raised in regard to RTET also. As per the directions of this court, there is revision of marks of RTET. By virtue of which many candidates are not possessing required qualifying marks to become eligible for the post of Teacher Gr III. The challenge to the revision of result based on the expert committee opinion is not pressed by any of the petitioners. By virtue of revision of result of RTET, the merit position for the post of Teacher Gr III is altered inasmuch as 20% weightage is given to the marks obtained in the RTET for determination of merit for the post of Teacher Gr III. In view of above, there are two sets of candidates, thus issue is required to be dealt with separately.

I am first dealing with the issue in regard to RTET as revision of marks therein make certain candidates to be ineligible for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr III. As earlier stated, RTET was conducted by the State prior to selection on the post of Teacher Gr III as aforesaid is one of the required qualifications. The candidates who could secure minimum 60% marks were made eligible for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr III. Concession to the reserved category candidates is given, however, it is subject to final outcome of the appeal pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. On the revision of the result of RTET, if a candidate became ineligible for the post of Teacher Gr III for want of required marks, then question comes as to whether he/she can be continued in the name of equity or for similar reasons. The issue needs to be determined in the light of the judgment cited by learned counsel for petitioners. The thrust of the arguments is that once a candidate is appointed, revision of result should not result in his discontinuance/ termination. To answer the question aforesaid, it would be relevant to refer circular/ Regulations of the NCTE, which is quoted thus -

Qualifying marks -

9. A person who scores 60% or more in the TET exam will be considered as TET pass. School managements (Government, local bodies, government aided and unaided)

(a) may consider giving concessions to persons belonging to SC/ST, OBC, differently abled persons, etc., in accordance with their extant reservation policy;

(b) should give weightage to the TET scores in the recruitment process; however, qualifying the TET would not confer a right on any person for recruitment/ employment as it is only one of the eligibility criteria for appointment.

One needs to possess minimum qualifying marks in RTET to become eligible for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr III. In view of above, if a candidate is not in possession of the required marks in RTET then he is ineligible for appointment.

If the facts of present writ petitions are looked into, on issuance of the result of the RTET, petitioners were declared eligible for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr III and finding place in the merit, they were given appointment. Now, by virtue of a dispute regarding questions and answers of RTET, revised result has been issued. Many petitioners are not in possession of required qualifying marks in RTET thus became ineligible for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr III. The respondents have assessed the position aforesaid based on their circular where concession/ relaxation has been given to reserve category candidates otherwise as per judgment of the Division Bench in the case of State of Rajasthan versus Vikas Kumar Agrawal, every candidate is required to possess minimum 60% in TET.

In my opinion, ineligible candidates cannot be continued in service inasmuch as difference is to be made between ineligible candidates and eligible candidates. An ineligible candidate has no right to continue in service. It may be that they became ineligible due to revision of result of RTET. If this court directs to continue them, it would be de hors the instructions/ regulations of the NCTE. In none of the judgments referred by learned counsel for petitioners, a direction has been given by the Apex Court to continue even ineligible candidates. In those cases, a candidate could not be figure in the merit list due to revision of result but it was not a case where one became ineligible due to revision of result. Thus facts of present cases are distinguishable to that extent. In regard to those candidates who are now ineligible for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr III as they are not possessing required qualifying marks in RTET, a direction for continuance or restraining the respondents to terminate their services cannot be given. In the background aforesaid, those petitioners who are not possessing qualifying marks in RTET after revision of result, have no right to continue in service. Accordingly, first issue is decided against the petitioners.

The revision of result of RTET is having another aspect for consideration. The candidates are in possession of required qualifying marks in RTET even after revision of result but it effects their merit position for the post of Teacher Gr III thus their cases have to be separated from those candidates who are not in possession of required qualifying marks in RTET. Their cases have to be considered along with those who are not finding place in the merit list of Teacher Gr III due to revision of marks. The cases would be considered after taking into consideration the revised marks in RTET and test for the post of Teacher Gr III.

As indicated above, there is a revision of marks of RTET as well selection test for the post of Teacher Gr III affecting their merit position. Total number of such candidates are 287 on the post of Teacher Gr III (Level-I) and 2455 candidates on the post of Teacher Gr III (Level-II). The revision of result based on expert opinion is challenged but not pressed as otherwise this court has very limited jurisdiction to interfere in the expert opinion.

In view of above, the only question for my consideration is as to whether termination can be effected on revision of result either due to deletion of certain questions or correction of answer. The issue aforesaid was considered by the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar & ors (supra). The correction in the answer script and revaluation was allowed and held to be just and legal. A direction for fresh selection in view of application of improper answer key was not accepted. The revaluation of answer key and the result was held to be a good option to do justice to those who suffered on account of erroneous key. It was held that such evaluation need not necessarily result in ousting of appellants found below cut off marks based on revised list. Paras 17 to 19 are quoted hereunder for ready reference -

17. That brings us to the submission by Mr. Rao that while re-evaluation is a good option not only to do justice to those who may have suffered on account of an erroneous key being applied to the process but also to writ Petitioners- Respondents 6 to 18 in the matter of allocating to them their rightful place in the merit list. Such evaluation need not necessarily result in the ouster of the Appellants should they be found to fall below the 'cut off' mark in the merit list. Mr. Rao gave two reasons in support of that submission. Firstly, he contended that the Appellants are not responsible for the error committed by the parties in the matter of evaluation of the answer scripts. The position may have been different if the Appellants were guilty of any fraud, misrepresentation or malpractice that would have deprived them of any sympathy from the Court or justified their ouster. Secondly, he contended that the Appellants have served the State efficiently and without any complaint for nearly seven years now and most of them, if not all, may have become overage for fresh recruitment within the State or outside the State. They have also lost the opportunity to appear in the subsequent examination held in the year 2007. Their ouster from service after their employment on the basis of a properly conducted competitive examination not itself affected by any malpractice or other extraneous consideration or misrepresentation will cause hardship to them and ruin their careers and lives. The experience gained by these Appellants over the years would also, according to Mr. Rao, go waste as the State will not have the advantage of using valuable human resource which was found useful in the service of the people of the State of Bihar for a long time. Mr. Rao, therefore, prayed for a suitable direction that while re-evaluation can determine the inter-se position of the writ Petitioners and the Appellants in these appeals, the result of such re-evaluation may not lead to their ouster from service, if they fell below the cut off line.

18. There is considerable merit in the submission of Mr. Rao. It goes without saying that the Appellants were innocent parties who have not, in any manner, contributed to the preparation of the erroneous key or the distorted result. There is no mention of any fraud or malpractice against the Appellants who have served the State for nearly seven years now. In the circumstances, while inter-se merit position may be relevant for the Appellants, the ouster of the latter need not be an inevitable and inexorable consequence of such a re-evaluation. The re-evaluation process may additionally benefit those who have lost the hope of an appointment on the basis of a wrong key applied for evaluating the answer scripts. Such of those candidates as may be ultimately found to be entitled to issue of appointment letters on the basis of their merit shall benefit by such re-evaluation and shall pick up their appointments on that basis according to their inter se position on the merit list.

19. In the result, we allow these appeals, set aside the order passed by the High Court and direct that -

(1) answer scripts of candidates appearing in 'A' series of competition examination held pursuant to advertisement No. 1406 of 2006 shall be got re-evaluated on the basis of a correct key prepared on the basis of the report of Dr. (Prof.) CN Sinha and Prof. KSP Singh and the observations made in the body of this order and a fresh merit list drawn up on that basis.

(2) Candidates who figure in the merit list but have not been appointed shall be offered appointments in their favour. Such candidates would earn their seniority from the date the Appellants were first appointed in accordance with their merit position but without any back wages or other benefit whatsoever.

(3) In case writ Petitioners- Respondent Nos. 6 to 18 also figure in the merit list after re-evaluation of the answer scripts, their appointments shall relate back to the date when the Appellants were first appointed with continuity of service to them for purpose of seniority but without any back wages or other incidental benefits.

(4) Such of the Appellants as do not make the grade after re-evaluation shall not be ousted from service, but shall figure at the bottom of the list of selected candidates based on the first selection in terms of advertisement No. 1406 of 2006 and the second selection held pursuant to advertisement No. 1906 of 2006.

(5) Needful shall be done by the Respondents - State and the Staff Selection Commission expeditiously but not later than three months from the date a copy of this order is made available to them.

The next judgment is in the case of Sabita Prasad & ors (supra). Therein, the panel prepared for appointment was held to be unconstitutional thus a prayer was made not to continue any candidate appointed out of the aforesaid panel. Referring to various judgments, it was found that while passing orders in favour of the petitioners, invariably a protection is given in favour of those who are not party and continued in service. It was a case where after holding the panel to be unconstitutional, government took a decision not to disturb those who have already been appointed and continued in service. The Apex Court held decision of the government to be just and proper as the appointees were not party to the litigation and otherwise the High Court had given a protection to those who were already appointed while holding panel to be unconstitutional.

The judgments in the case of Suresh Kumar versus RPSC (supra), Ramesh Chand versus RSRTC (supra) and Naresh Kumar Sharma & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors, 2012(1) WLC (Raj) 538 are similar inasmuch as this court saved those who were not party to the litigation. The dispute regarding appointment to the post of Teacher Gr II for different subjects was not directly involved in the case of Suresh Kumar versus RPSC (supra). Therein, change of result of General knowledge affected selection to the post of Teacher Gr II. This court observed that while revising the result of Teacher Gr II of other subjects, it should not affect the person already appointed. The observation aforesaid was looking to the fact that a challenge to the selection to the post of Teacher Gr II for different subjects was not involved therein and otherwise the candidates appointed were not party to the litigation. The observation therein is not evolving any ratio so as to apply to other case.

The position of fact is similar in the case of Ramesh Chand versus RSRTC (supra) wherein after finalisation of the result and appointment, the question of correctness of the answers was raised. Therein, interference in the appointments was not made only for the reason that it will unsettle the selection and appointment of the candidates already appointed and were not party to the litigation.

In view of above and as held by the Apex Court in the case of Sabita Prasad (supra), invariable observations or directions are issued not to touch appointments of those who are not party to the litigation. Para 30 of the judgment in the case of Sabita Prasad is quoted hereunder -

30.The non-interference with the appointment of teachers from the panel who stood already appointed cannot in our opinion form the basis of Article 14 argument. The fundamental right of equality implies that persons in like situations, under like circumstances, are entitled to be treated alike. Reasonable classification according to some principle to recognise intelligible inequalities or to avoid or correct inequalities is permissible. It is in this background that we must divert our attention to the charge of violation of Article 14. Indeed, if the action of the State can be shown to be arbitrary, then notwithstanding any classification it would offend Article 14 and be liable to be struck down. Those who had been appointed out of the panel as and when the vacancies arose and had continued in service did acquire some right to so continue and the action of the State Government in protecting their services cannot be said to infringe Article 14, which even though all pervasive, has to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case. The appointed and the non- appointed teachers formed separate and distinct classes. In saving the appointments of those who stood already appointed and were serving there was no arbitrariness whatsoever on the part of the Respondents. It indeed is no body's case that the decision taken by the State was actuated by any motive or the scrapping of the panel after 2.7.1989, was malafide. Even otherwise; when the State decided to respect the equities which have arisen in favour of the teachers already appointed and serving, no fault can be found with it. Equity reforms and moderates the rigour and hardness of the law and the State acted fairly and bonafide to respect and balance the equities in favour of the appointed candidates. We must, therefore, reject the charge of arbitrariness in view of the peculiar facts of this case more particularly since we have already found that the persons on the panel had not acquired any indefeasible right to appointment merely by being placed on the panel. It also deserves to be noted here that the Appellants had not questioned, as it is, the validity of appointment of the teachers, already appointed, but have on the other hand sought treatment similar to the one of the appointed teachers. The decision to save the appointments of the teachers already appointed, who form a distinct and separate class, is therefore fair and reasonable and does no suffer from the vice of arbitrariness. This view also accords with the judgment in Subash Chander Marwaha's case (supra) and the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Shankarsan Dash's case (supra). We must, therefore reject the argument of discrimination between the two classes of teachers, namely, those who stood appointed and the others who were waiting to be appointed and in whose favour no indefeasible right accrued, only by being brought on the panel, to be appointed.

The para aforesaid shows that there should be a difference between the appointees and non-appointees thus while deciding a particular writ petition, some safeguard can be given to the appointee, if they are not party to the litigation.

The judgment in the case of P Shiva (supra) decided by High Court of Karnataka is not in regard to recruitment but for promotion. The view taken therein was that even if one has not secured required marks for acquiring eligibility, he/she should not be affected unless it is by way of fraud or malpractice or irregularities. In my opinion, the judgment aforesaid is having only persuasive value and, with respect, cannot be accepted to be laying down correct law inasmuch as difference has to be made between ineligible and eligible candidates. The continuance of ineligible candidates would mean violation of the rules or a direction de hors the statutory provisions.

In the case of Vikas Pratap Singh & ors (supra) the issue again came up before the Apex Court. Therein, revision of result was due to revaluation of answer script where 8 questions of Paper-II were found to be incorrect. Due to revaluation, 26 appellants could not find place in the merit, accordingly their appointments were cancelled. Para 16 to 20 and 25 to 28 of the above judgment are quoted hereunder for ready reference -

16. In respect of the Respondent-Board's propriety in taking the decision of re-evaluation of answer scripts, we are of the considered view that the Respondent-Board is an independent body entrusted with the duty of proper conduct of competitive examinations to reach accurate results in fair and proper manner with the help of Experts and is empowered to decide upon re-evaluation of answer sheets in the absence of any specific provision in that regard, if any irregularity at any stage of evaluation process is found. (See: Chairman, J and K State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik and Ors. (2000) 3 SCC 59 and Sahiti and Ors. v. The Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences and Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 599). It is settled law that if the irregularities in evaluation could be noticed and corrected specifically and undeserving select candidates be identified and in their place deserving candidates be included in select list, then no illegality would be said to have crept in the process of re-evaluation. The Respondent-Board thus identified the irregularities which had crept in the evaluation procedure and corrected the same by employing the method of re-evaluation in respect of the eight questions answers to which were incorrect and by deletion of the eight incorrect questions and allotment of their marks on pro-rata basis. The said decision cannot be characterized as arbitrary. Undue prejudice indeed would have been caused had there been re-evaluation of subjective answers, which is not the case herein.

17. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case the decision of re-evaluation by the Respondent-Board was a valid decision which could not be said to have caused any prejudice, whatsoever, either to the Appellants or to the candidates selected in the revised merit list and therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the High Court to the aforesaid extent.

18.It is brought to our notice that in view of the interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge the Appellants have now completed their training and have been in service for more than three years. Therefore the only question which survives for our consideration and decision is whether after having undergone training and assumed charge at their place of posting the 26 Appellants be ousted from service on the basis of cancellation of their appointment qua the revised merit list.

19. Shri Rao would submit that the case of these Appellants requires sympathetic consideration by this Court, since the appointment of Appellants on the basis of a properly conducted competitive examination cannot be said to have been affected by any malpractice or other extraneous consideration or misrepresentation on their part. The ouster of 26 Appellants from service after having successfully undergone training and serving the Respondent-State for more than three years now would cause undue hardship to them and ruin their lives and careers. He would further submit that an irretrievable loss in terms of life and livelihood would be caused to eight Appellants amongst them who have now become over aged and have also lost the opportunity to appear in the subsequent examinations. He would place reliance upon the decision of this Court in Rajesh Kumar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., 2013(3) SCALE 393 wherein this Court has directed the Respondent-State to re-evaluate the answer scripts on the basis of correct model answers key and sympathetically considered the case of such candidates who, after having being appointed in terms of erroneous evaluation and having served the State for considerable length of time, would not find place in the fresh merit list drawn after re-evaluation and directed the Respondent-State against ousting of such candidates and further that they be placed at the bottom of the fresh merit list.

20.The pristine maxim of fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant (fraud and justice never dwell together) has never lost its temper over the centuries and it continues to dwell in spirit and body of service law jurisprudence. It is settled law that no legal right in respect of appointment to a said post vests in a candidate who has obtained the employment by fraud, mischief, misrepresentation or malafide. (See: District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and Anr. v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990) 3 SCC 655, P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath and Ors (1994) 1 SCC 1 and Union of India and Ors. v. M. Bhaskaran 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 100). It is also settled law that a person appointed erroneously on a post must not reap the benefits of wrongful appointment jeopardizing the interests of the meritorious and worthy candidates. However, in cases where a wrongful or irregular appointment is made without any mistake on the part of the appointee and upon discovery of such error or irregularity the appointee is terminated, this Court has taken a sympathetic view in the light of various factors including bonafide of the candidate in such appointment and length of service of the candidate after such appointment (See: Vinodan T. and Ors. v. University of Calicut and Ors. (2002) 4 SCC 726; State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi and Ors. (2006) 1 SCC 667).

25. Admittedly, in the instant case the error committed by the Respondent-Board in the matter of evaluation of the answer scripts could not be attributed to the Appellants as they have neither been found to have committed any fraud or misrepresentation in being appointed qua the first merit list nor has the preparation of the erroneous model answer key or the specious result contributed to them. Had the contrary been the case, it would have justified their ouster upon re-evaluation and deprived them of any sympathy from this Court irrespective of their length of service.

26. In our considered view, the Appellants have successfully undergone training and are efficiently serving the Respondent-State for more than three years and undoubtedly their termination would not only impinge upon the economic security of the Appellants and their Dependants but also adversely affect their careers. This would be highly unjust and grossly unfair to the Appellants who are innocent appointees of an erroneous evaluation of the answer scripts. However, their continuation in service should neither give any unfair advantage to the Appellants nor cause undue prejudice to the candidates selected qua the revised merit list.

27. Accordingly, we direct the Respondent-State to appoint the Appellants in the revised merit list placing them at the bottom of the said list. The candidates who have crossed the minimum statutory age for appointment shall be accommodated with suitable age relaxation.

28. We clarify that their appointment shall for all intents and purpose be fresh appointment which would not entitle the Appellants to any back wages, seniority or any other benefit based on their earlier appointment.

The perusal of the paras quoted above reveals that so far as revaluation of the answers and revision of the result is concerned, no illegality exist therein. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further considered the issue as to whether revaluation should oust the candidates earlier appointed.

The issue aforesaid is required to be viewed from two aspects. First is as to whether there can be re-valuation of the answer script so as to ignore incorrect answers or to correct the answers given in the key. It is held permissible by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments and specially the judgments (supra), thus one proposition becomes clear that there can be change in the answer script so as to correct the questions and answers.

The question further comes as to for whose advantage, it needs to be corrected? The obvious answer is that those who had given correct answer of a question but could not obtain marks because of erroneous setting of answer key of a particular question or questions and, at the same time, benefited those who had given incorrect answer, yet secured marks due to the reasons stated above. If incorrect answer key is allowed to remains as it is, it would be to the benefit of those who had given incorrect answer and taken benefit of the default of the respondents in setting erroneous answer key and secured marks over and above meritorious candidates. Thus, it becomes clear that revaluation of answer script is to benefit meritorious candidates.

The next question and the crucial issue is that if revaluation of answer script ultimately results in revision of merit list to the benefit of meritorious candidates, then can a candidate going out of merit should be allowed to continue in service? If the answer is given in affirmative then it would result in giving benefit to a candidate who had given incorrect answers to certain questions and even after correction of answers and coming out of the merit would still take benefit of default of the respondents. They will continue even though there are candidates with better marks after revised result.

If the candidates, already appointed, are continued then the question would be as to how the revised merit list would be operated for the meritorious candidates. It is settled law that the size of the posts for recruitment is to be determined by the administration and if, that is so, then giving direction for appointment of meritorious candidates out of the revised merit list would mean a direction to give appointment in excess to the posts advertised. If a direction to give appointment in excess to the posts advertised cannot be given then meritorious candidates would be deprived from appointment. In that case, what would be the purpose of revaluation of the answer script or the questions?

If a view is taken to direct the respondents to adjust those who have already been appointed against future vacancies, then equity in favour of such candidates would be at the cost of meritorious candidates of next recruitment thus, under all circumstances, a direction to continue less meritorious candidates would be proper or not, needs to be considered. The reference of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hoshiar Singh versus State of Haryana & ors [AIR 1993 SC 2606] would be relevant and para 10 thereof is quoted hereasunder-

10. The learned counsel for these appellants have not been able to show that after the revised requisition dated January 24, 1991 whereby the Board was requested to send its recommendation for 8 posts, any further requisition was sent by the Director General of Police for a larger number of posts. Since the requisition was for eight posts of Inspector of Police, the Board was required to send its recommendations for eight posts only. The Board, on its own, could not recommend names of 19 persons for appointment even though the requisition was for eight posts only because the selection and recommendation of larger number of persons than the posts for which requisition is sent. The appointment on the additional posts on the basis of such selection and recommendation would deprive candidates who were not eligible for appointment to the posts on the last date for submission of applications mentioned on the advertisement and who became eligible for appointment thereafter, of the opportunity of being considered for appointment on the additional posts because if the said additional posts are advertised subsequently those who become eligible for appointment would be entitled to apply for the same. The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that the selection of 19 persons by the Board even though the requisition was for 8 posts only, was not legally sustainable.

There may be cases where no vacancy exist after appointment. Though, at times, the court passes order saving appointment already given, but, invariably, it is in such cases where appointees are not before the court or there are such similar exceptional circumstances. The direction therein are not propounding a ratio as has been given by the counsel for the petitioners while referring the judgment in the case of Ramesh Chand and Naresh Kumar Sharma (supra). The aforesaid would be considered separately, but, presently, I am reiterating a portion of the judgment in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh and Rajesh Kumar (supra), heavily relied by learned counsel for petitioners. Firstly, a part of the judgment in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh, para 20 -

...It is also settled law that a person appointed erroneously on a post must not reap the benefits of wrongful appointment jeopardizing the interests of the meritorious and worthy candidates. However, in cases where a wrongful or irregular appointment is made without any mistake on the part of the appointee and upon discovery of such error or irregularity the appointee is terminated, this Court has taken a sympathetic view in the light of various factors including bonafide of the candidate in such appointment and length of service of the candidate after such appointment (See: Vinodan T. and Ors. v. University of Calicut and Ors. (2002) 4 SCC 726; State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi and Ors. (2006) 1 SCC 667)....

26.........However, their continuation in service should neither give any unfair advantage to the Appellants nor cause undue prejudice to the candidates selected qua the revised merit list.

A perusal of the para quoted above reveals that a person appointed erroneously must not reap benefits of wrongful appointment jeopardizing interest of meritorious and worthy candidates. Second part, however, save petitioners' appointment due to discovery of error or irregularity but it is by taking a sympathetic view in the light of various factors including length of their service.

The Apex Court, thereupon, took notice of further fact that continuance of services of the appointees should neither give unfair advantage to the appellants nor cause undue prejudice to the candidates selected qua revised merit list. If the aforesaid is taken into consideration on the facts of these cases, answer would be in negative because the whole purpose of the revision of the merit list would be vitiated and cause serious prejudice to the candidates who find place in the merit list after revision of result if they cannot be given appointment. Thus, while referring to the judgment in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh (supra), this court cannot ignore the reason taken therein for continuance of candidates. It was purely on sympathetic consideration and taking note of their length of service apart from bona fides.

The position of fact is similar in the case of Rajesh Kumar (supra). Therein, Hon'ble Apex Court took notice that the candidates already appointed were not guilty of any fraud, misrepresentation or malpractice. They had otherwise served the State efficiently for nearly 7 years and even become overage for fresh recruitment within the State or outside the State. They lost the opportunity to appear in the subsequent examination held in the year 2007. The portions of para 17 and 18 of the said judgment is again quoted hereunder for ready reference -

......Secondly, he contended that the Appellants have served the State efficiently and without any complaint for nearly seven years now and most of them, if not all, may have become overage for fresh recruitment within the State or outside the State. They have also lost the opportunity to appear in the subsequent examination held in the year 2007. Their ouster from service after their employment on the basis of a properly conducted competitive examination not itself affected by any malpractice or other extraneous consideration or misrepresentation will cause hardship to them and ruin their careers and lives.

18. ........In the circumstances, while inter-se merit position may be relevant for the Appellants, the ouster of the latter need not be an inevitable and inexorable consequence of such a re-evaluation. The re-evaluation process may additionally benefit those who have lost the hope of an appointment on the basis of a wrong key applied for evaluating the answer scripts. Such of those candidates as may be ultimately found to be entitled to issue of appointment letters on the basis of their merit shall benefit by such re-evaluation and shall pick up their appointments on that basis according to their inter se position on the merit list.

The perusal of portions of the paras quoted above shows that revaluation is a good option to do justice to those who have suffered on account of erroneous key so as to place them in the merit list. It may not necessarily oust the candidates already appointed in a given circumstance. The aforesaid formula cannot be applied in general but only in given case which may be if a candidate has continued in service for long.

In the case of Rajesh Kumar (supra), two reasons were given to continue the candidates ousted from the merit. First was that they were not guilty of fraud, misrepresentation or malpractice etc and second was that they had served for 7 years and lost further opportunity of service.

In reference of the judgment above, it become clear that revision of result may not necessarily oust the candidates already appointed, if they are going out of merit list but aforesaid cannot be a rigid formula in view of the ratio propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case supra itself. It all depends on the facts of each case.

If the facts of the instant case are taken note of, appointment of the petitioners was only on provisional basis and subject to outcome of various litigations thus it was made clear that the appointments would not give indefinite right in favour of the candidates appointed. The relevant portion of one of the appointment order is quoted hereunder for ready reference -

"?????????? ???????? ?? ???? ???????? ?????? ????????? (????? 6 ?? 8 ?? ???? ??) ?? ???????? ????? ???? (?????????? ???????) ???? 2008 ?? ???? 21 ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ????????? ??? ??? ???? ?????????? ????? 8950/- ??? ????? ??? ???? ???????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????, ?????? ?????, ???? ??????????? ?????, ????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ????????? ????????? ???? ??? ???? ???????? ??? ????? ??? ???????? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ??????? ?????????? ?? ?????? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ????????? ????????? ???? ?? ???????? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ??????????? ??????? 5200-20200 ????? ?? ????? 2800/- ??? ????? ?? ???????? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ??????? ??, ???? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ?? ???????? ??????? ? 1(2) ????/?????/06 ?????? 13.03.2006 ?? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ??????????? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ?? ??, ?? ???????? ??????? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ???????? ?? ?? ?? ??????? ???? ??????? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ??????? ?? ?????? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ???????? ?? ???? ???????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? 6 ?? 8 ?? ???? ?? ???????? ?????? ???????? ???? ???????? ????? ??????? ?????? ??.??.?????? ???? ??.2664/2011 ?????? ???????? ????? ???? ????????? ? ???? ??? ???????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ?????? 06.01.2012 ?? ??????? ?????? ???????? ?? ???? ???????? ?????? ?????? ??.??.????? ??? ?????? ??. 9170/2012, 9169/2012, 9176/2012, 9177/2012, 9184/2012, 9222/2012, 9253/2012, 9262/2012, 9271/2012, 9319/2012, 9328/2012, 8121/2012 ? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ?????? ??? ??????????? ????????? ???? ??? ???????? ??????? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ????????? ?????? ??????? ???? ??????"

The part quoted above reveals that the petitioners were given only provisional appointment on probation and it was made clear that such appointment would not cause any indefinite right to continue. It may be due to litigation pending on different issues. The fact further remains that appointments were made only on provisional basis which was not in the case of Rajesh Kumar and Vikas Pratap Singh (supra). In the case in hand, the petitioners have worked hardly for 11 months or so thus duration of their service is not so large so as to create equity in their favour. It is, however, shown that some candidates left the service to seek appointment on the post of Teacher Gr III though number of such petitioners are quite limited because in most of the writ petitions, documents in this regard do not exist. In any case, this court will give appropriate directions to settle equities in their favour.

The further issue raised by learned counsel for petitioners is regarding deprivation of the petitioners to apply for the same posts in the next selection as the last date of which was 4.9.2013. The issue aforesaid also needs consideration thus proper directions would be given in the operative portion of the judgment so that action of the State Government may not affect those candidates in the future selection even if they have become overage and if failed to apply for that.

In the instant case, number of candidates going out of merit is large as it is running in hundreds and thousands. It was noticed during the course of arguments that around 2455 candidates have gone out of merit for the post of Teacher Gr III (Level-II) and 187 candidates have gone out of merit for the post of Teacher Gr III (Level-I). If such number of candidates are continued and, at the same time, a direction for appointment of equivalent number of candidates coming in the merit is given, it may virtually or to some extent, nullify the next recruitment as appointment of meritorious candidates has to be adjusted somewhere against those vacancies only. It may be true that default in setting out the questions or answers is not due to malpractice, misrepresentation or fraud of the petitioners but then this court should not ignore the fact that effect of continuance of large number of candidates would nullify the very purpose of revaluation itself which otherwise is held to be proper method to correct the irregularities. If, in all circumstances, a candidate going out of merit is continued in service, it would be adjustment of less meritorious candidates at the cost of those who may exist in between new cut off marks and the marks of the petitioners.

Now comes the issue in reference to the judgment in the case of Sabita Prasad (supra). It is earlier clarified that writ petition therein was filed to oust those who were not entitled to continue on the post. It is in the light of a decision of the government to continue such candidates. The Hon'ble Apex Court therein held that if the State has taken a decision to continue such candidates, it will not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The difference between the appointees and non-appointees is to be made. The facts situation in the instant case is different because it is the government which has taken a decision to discontinue those candidates who are not coming in the revised merit list. Therein, the court was cautious enough to hold that those who had been appointed out of the panel when vacancy arose and had continued in service, acquire some right to continue and the action of the State Government in continuing their services cannot be said to be infringe Article 14 of the Constitution which even though of persuasive value, has to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each cases. The aforesaid observation has been made in para 30 thus there exist room for this court to decide the issue of continuance and non-continuance of the candidates in the facts and circumstances of each case. Portion of para 30 of the judgment in the case of Sabita Prasad (supra) is quoted again for ready reference -

The government may take a decision to continue services of those who have already been appointed but then it should not be generally at the cost of meritorious candidates. It would otherwise become a case of misplaced sympathy in favour of the appointees and prejudicial to the cause of meritorious candidates which has not been accepted by the Apex Court in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh (supra).

Learned counsel for petitioners have even referred to the judgment of this court where appointments of the candidates were saved. The first judgment is in the case of Suresh Kumar & ors (supra). It was a case where correctness of certain questions for the post of Teacher Gr II (Social Science and Mathematics) was questioned apart from General Knowledge. This court noticed that there was a change in the answers in General Knowledge also and it was common for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr II in different subjects. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission agreed to change the result of the post of Teacher Gr II of Social Science and Mathematics. The issue in respect of Teacher Gr II of other subject was not before the court thus, cautiously, a direction was given not to disturb the appointees, otherwise direction aforesaid would have been without hearing the appointees of other subjects apart from the fact that the issue was limited therein for Teacher Gr II in the subject of Social Science and Mathematics. Therein, the direction was given to settle the equities in favour of the meritorious candidates. The issue therein was on different facts and otherwise it is not propounding a ratio but gives a direction in the facts and circumstances of the case.

In the instant case, the issue has been discussed and decided elaborately in reference of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar and Vikas Pratap Singh.

The position of fact in the case of Ramesh Chand versus RSRTC (supra) is again similar. Therein, certain questions were found to be incorrect after appointment of the candidates, however, a direction to amend select list was not given as it was unsettling the selection and appointment without hearing the candidates who have already been appointed thus, on facts, a direction was given not to unsettle the result as the appointees are not heard being not party to the litigation.

In the case of Naresh Kumar Sharma & ors (supra), the appointments were continued for three years thus a direction for their continuance was given. The direction aforesaid has been taken to be ratio propounded by this court. It is in ignorance to the fact that discussion on the issue does not exist therein thus it remains only a direction.

In view of the discussion made above, I find that the impugned order dated 30.8.2013 issued by the Principal Secretary & Commissioner, Rural Development & Panchayati Raj (Panchayati Raj & Elementary Education), Government of Rajasthan or the termination orders, if any, in consequence thereof do not suffer from any illegality. It is in the light of the fact that each issue raised by learned counsel for petitioners have been considered by this court thus sending the matter for post-decisional hearing to observe principles of natural justice would be an empty formality. I do not find any illegality in the action of the respondents and justification of continuance of services of the petitioners, however, some equities exist in favour of the petitioners thus all the writ petitions are disposed of with following directions -

1-This court is not inclined to cause interference in the impugned order dated 30.8.2013 so as the orders of termination.

2-The petitioners were appointed and continued in service for nearly 11 months before passing of the impugned order. The appointment and continuance was not to their default, however, this court cannot ignore revision of merit list and consequence thereof. Thus, detailed judgment has been rendered. To balance the equities, a direction is given to the respondents to allow the petitioners to appear in the next selection without debarring them on the ground of age. If new vacancies have arisen then they would be expected to arrange for the next selection within a period of six months so that petitioners may also compete therein and, if find place in the merit, are given appointment. This direction would, however, not apply to those candidates who have not secured requisite marks in the RTET.

3-The termination of the petitioners may however be effected after considering revised marks in RTET inasmuch as result of RTET has also been revised thus if a candidate has gained marks therein and comes in merit, then not to be terminated.

4-The petitioners, who were earlier serving in the State Government and have resigned to join the post of Teacher Gr III would be continued in the past services if it was with the State Government or its undertaking. For that, The Chief Secretary of the State would pass separate order.

5-The respondents would, however, pay due salary to the petitioners for the period they have worked under their orders or under the interim orders of the court.

6-The petitioners would be at liberty to seek any clarification, if needed, on the judgment of the pending SLPs in the case of Vikas Sankhla & ors etc versus versus Vikas Kumar Agrawal & ors etc, SLP (Civil) No.23178-23182/2013 and other connected matters.

7-Before parting with the judgment it would be necessary to direct that respondents not to make appointments in future to any post unless they first call for the objections to the questions and answers and finalise it followed by publication of select list. This is to avoid type of litigation brought herein.

(MN Bhandari), J.

bnsharma All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.

(BN Sharma) PS-cum-JW

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur