- (1.) THE learned counsel Mr.Ashok Choudhary appears for the respondent in SAW No.322/2013; and the learned counsel Mr.D.S.Sodha appears for the respondent in SAW No.411/2013. Service is complete. Having regard to the submissions made, both these appeals are taken up together for final disposal at this stage itself.
(2.) HAVING regard to the submissions made and in the totality of the circumstances, a short delay of about 104-105 days in filing these appeals is condoned while allowing the applications moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the issue involved in these appeals stands covered by the judgment delivered by a co-ordinate bench on 31.07.2013 in a batch of appeals led by SAW No.875/2012 : State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Datar Singh. The directions of the learned Single Judge in similar nature writ petitions, requiring the present appellants to allow necessary corrections in the on-line application forms submitted by the writ petitioners upon making of representation on or before 24.09.2012; and for consideration of their candidatures afresh, have been found not calling for interference by the co-ordinate bench for being in consonance with the principles of equity, justice and good conscience. However, with reference to the submissions made by the present appellants about likely difficulty in carrying out compliance because of the appointments having already been made to the post of Teacher Grade-III, the co-ordinate bench has made it clear that the appointments already made would not be disturbed and the appointments, as per the directions in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, shall be given as per the availability of vacancies. The co-ordinate bench has, inter alia, observed as under: "...........In our considered opinion, it is the duty of the welfare State to at least grant opportunity of rectification of error at the stage of initiation of new modes and methods for submitting application forms on-line because until the new system comes in vogue there should be allowance for rectification of errors which may be either human or technical. Therefore, the learned Single Judge while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India gave directions to the respondents, in which, in the opinion of this Court, there is no error. In this view of the matter, the finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge granting opportunity to correct the errors does not require any interference. More so, the same is in consonance with the principles of natural justice. However, while taking into consideration the difficulties in compliance submitted before this Court we are of the opinion that those difficulties can be sorted out while observing that the appointments as a consequence to the corrections permitted by the learned single Judge shall be made only against the vacancies available with the appellants and appellant State shall not disturb the appointments already made because, in these cases, for the mistake/omission committed by the candidates themselves the candidates have been permitted by this judgment to remove the errors/mistakes and the appellant State cannot be held responsible. In view of above, all these special appeals are hereby dismissed. It is however made clear that opportunity shall be granted for rectification of error only as per directions given by the learned Single Judge; and, further, the appointments already made shall not be disturbed and appointments shall be made in pursuance of the directions given by the learned Single Judge as per availability of posts." 5. The position aforesaid directly applies to the present cases too. Therefore, these appeals are also dismissed subject to the same observations and directions as contained in the aforesaid judgment dated 31.07.2013.;