- (1.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's candidature may also be considered as he has scored higher marks than those candidates who have been appointed in terms of the judgment passed by the Division Bench.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The judgment of Division Bench in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.908/2017, it has been held as under: "Vide this order above mentioned appeals would be disposed of as they involve common questions of law and fact.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants had participated in the selection process for Teacher Grade-III (Level-I and II) in pursuance to the advertisement dated 24.02.2012. However, candidates who had scored less marks than the appellants were selected. During the pendency of the writ petition filed by the appellants, the results were revised account of revision of answer keys. Consequently, the candidates who were lower in merit than the appellants could not make in the selection process on account of revised result. However, the said candidates were retained in service by the respondents in view of the directions given by this Court vide order dated 18.11.2014 in Ramdhan Kumawat V/s State of Rajasthan & another. The said decision of the learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench. Learned counsel for the appellants have further submitted that a similar controversy arose before this Court in D.B. Special Appeal(Writ) No.1178/2017 titled as Rajesh Choudhary and others Versus State of Rajasthan and another along with other connected appeals and vide order dated 03.11.2017, it was ordered that the unfilled posts be treated as vacant posts and the same be filled up in view of various directions issued in judicial verdicts reproduced and considered in the said order. Learned counsel has submitted that the similar directions be issued in this case as were issued vide order dated 03.11.2017.;