Arun Mishra, C.J. - (1.) Similar contempt petition being D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.1127/2010 (Nand Gopal Goyal v. Shri K.K. Pathak and Ors.) alleging violation of the similar order of which violation has been alleged in this contempt petition, has been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench by a detailed order on 3.1.2011. Following order was passed by this Court:- "This petition has been filed alleging violation of the order passed by this court in Civil Writ Petition No. 14616/09 decided alongwith other 23 writ petitions vide common order dated 6.8.2010. Vide order dated 6.8.2010, this court has observed that the matter is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this court dated 10.5.2010 in DBCWP No.825/2010, Shrawan Kumar v. RPSC and Ors. and other connected writ petitions and the petition shall be governed by the order dated 5.5.2010 passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4235/2010, RPSC v. Balveer Singh Jat and Ors. and connected appeals. The Apex Court passed following order dated 5.5.2010 in the matter of RPSC v. Balveer Singh Jat and Ors.:- "Leave granted.
(2.) In 2005, Rajasthan Public Service Commission conducted test for the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and 87 candidates were selected and they were appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division) in 2007. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission had adopted a method of scaling for the purpose of assessment of answer sheets. Because of this, some of the candidates who had obtained less raw marks which were sealed up were called for interview and subsequently selected and appointed. Therefore series of writ petitions were filed before the High Court challenging the scaling method adopted by the Public Service Commission. The High Court by the impugned judgment has given certain directions and held that the fresh interviews of the candidates to be taken based on their raw marks obtained by them. As regards the candidates who have been already appointed by Rajasthan Public Service Commission, the High Court held that their appointments shall not be disturbed.
(3.) Now, pursuant to the directions of the High Court, it appears that 8 candidates who had already undergone interview secured more marks than the candidates who were already appointed to the Judicial Service based on raw marks and six other candidates namely, Sarita Noushad, Ashutuosh Kumawat, Rajant Khatri, Toshita Verma, Sarita Dhakad and Divya Singh were not subjected to interview though they have got higher raw marks. They have to be interviewed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. If any one of them is found to be eligible, such candidates are also entitled to get appointment. Eight candidates who had already secured more marks than, the last candidate appointed, should be considered for appointment. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission is directed to conduct interview of above named six candidates within period of three weeks. The eight candidates who had already undergone interview, need not be interviewed again. Final list of eligible candidates based on the marks secured by the candidates who were already interviewed and are to be interviewed, shall be prepared and from the said list appointments on nine vacant posts shall be made in order of merits. We are told that the names of the candidates who were already selected in 2008 are sent for appointment to the Government. Naturally, the appointments pursuant to this order would take place after the appointments of the candidates selected in 2008 but they will be entitled to get seniority after their appointments.;