- (1.) IT is stated that controversy involved in this writ petition has been settled by this court in the case of Manoj Kumar Sharma & ors Vs State of Rajasthan & ors, SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4298/2008 along with 110 connected writ petitions on 15.5.2009. Accordingly, this writ petition may be ordered to be governed by the aforesaid judgment. For seeking relief as given therein, petitioner will make a proper representation to the respondents which may then be considered in the light of the judgment referred to above.
(2.) I have considered submission of learned counsel. This court, while disposing of the writ petitions led by Manoj Kumar Sharma, issued following directions, which are quoted thus - "However, there are chances that the name of the petitioner(s) may appear in the State merit list, therefore, all the writ petition except Sharmila Paneri are disposed of with a direction to the respondents that in case the name of the petitioner(s) stand in the State merit list ;dated 28.2.2009 of GNM and the advertised vacancies are available then they may be given appointment as per their merit even if the less meritorious persons are continuing, then they have to make room for the petitioner(s) whose name stands higher on merit in State merit list." Since the issue has already been settled, in view of directions quoted above, respondents were expected to extend benefit of appointment to those who stand in the state-wise merit issued on 28.2.2009 and if issued even subsequently. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions - Petitioner may make representation to the respondents in view of the directions issued in the case of Manoj Kumar Sharma (supra) to give appointment if they stand in state-wise merit list issued on 28.2.2009 or subsequently issued. Such representation may be made within a period of two weeks from today. If any such representation is made, respondents are expected to consider case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment in the case of Manoj Kumar Sharma (supra). If petitioner is held entitled for the benefit then respondents may pass necessary orders without dragging them into further litigation. It is after keeping in mind the merit list issued on 28.2.2009 and subsequent to it, if any, in regard to same selection. In case petitioner is not found entitled to the benefit as directed by this court in the case (supra), for any reason whatsoever, respondents may convey the same to the petitioners in writing.
(3.) IN case of adverse order against the petitioners, they would be at liberty to file fresh writ petition. IN case of any difficulty in complying the orders, respondents would be at liberty to make an application before this court.;