V.K.SHARMA J. - (1.) THE petitioners have jointly filed this writ petition for claiming undermentioned reliefs: "It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction : (i) The respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioners on the post of Teacher Grade-III and accord the appointment with all consequential benefits w.e.f. The date from which less meritorious candidates are given appointment. (ii)Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners."
(2.) FOR claiming the aforementioned reliefs, the petitioners have averred in the writ petition that the lis involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the verdict of this Court, rendered at Jaipur Bench, in case of Neeraj Saxena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No. 6829/2006 decided on 23.1.2009. The petitioners have placed on record a copy of the said verdict which is neither certified nor authenticated one. While adverting to the factual aspects of the matter, the petitioners have averred in the writ petition that the respondents initiated the process for recruitment to the post of Teacher Grade-III, vide notification dated 15.6.1998 and pursuant thereto, being eligible, all the petitioners have offered their candidature for selection. After scrutiny of the applications, the respondents have prepared a merit list of eligible candidates, indicating that the petitioners have secured 67.47%, 65.47% and 61.22% marks respectively. The petitioners have made specific averments in the writ petition that the provision incorporated in the advertisement for providing bonus marks to the resident of particular District and Rural Area was assailed before this Court in case of Deepak Kumar Suthar and this Court has decided to hold that extending benefit of Bonus Marks to the resident of Rural Area and the particular District is dehors the law. In the said verdict, this Court has protected the appointments already accorded to some of the incumbents. Ultimately, the matter went up to the Hon'ble Apext Court and the Apex Court has upheld the said view of this Court in Kailash Chandra Sharma's case. Referring to the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 30.7.2002, the petitioners have mentioned in the writ petition, that the relief granted by this Court was modified, in as much as, the verdict of this Court whereby relief was confined to only those incumbents who were appointed uptil 17.11.1999 kept intact but the Apex Court has further directed the respondents to re-open and re-consider cases of these incumbents, who were accorded appointments subsequent to 17.11.1999 and prepare a fresh list by reducing the bonus marks awarded to the incumbents on the basis of their being resident of a particular District in Rural Area. The petitioners have asserted with full emphasis that they are meritorious than the other incumbents, who have been accorded appointments without material particulars, in fact pleadings in this behalf are absolutely vague, cryptic and un-specific. The petitioners have also placed on record communications dated 07.1.2003, 1.3.2006 and 24.2.2006 respectively.
(3.) BUTTRESSING their grievances, the petitioners have also averred in the writ petition that the Government has issued directions to all Zila Parishads to accord appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III, after deducting bonus marks and has further ordered for constituting a high level committee vide order dated 28.1.2004 under the Chairmanship of Secretary, Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to resolve the issue perpetually. As per the petitioners, final report and recommendations of the Committee has not been published.;