Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) THE instant intra -court appeals involve identical question of facts and law and therefore, the intra -court appeals are being adjudicated upon by this common judgment.
(2.) SHORN off unnecessary details, the indispensable essential material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised are: that the appellants successfully participated in the selection process in response to the advertisement dated 20th June, 2008, and as amended by corrigendum dated 2nd September, 2008, issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'RPSC', for short). The written test was conducted on 22nd July, 2009 and result was declared on 22nd September, 2009. The appellants were accorded appointment on 14th July, 2010 on the post of Teacher Grade -III and submitted their joining in consequence thereof. However, the appointment of the appellants was cancelled vide order dated 17th March, 2011, as a consequence of revision of the result, in compliance of the judgment delivered by this Court in a batch of writ applications, lead case being SBCWP Number 12621 of 2009 - Hari Singh & Ors. Versus RPSC & Ors. The learned Single Judge while allowing the batch of writ applications (supra), held thus: - - "Consequently, writ petitions are hereby allowed. Respondents are directed to treat option (3) (Abdul Fazal) to Q.20 of Series A & its corresponding Questions of other series as correct answer thereto and accordingly such of petitioners and applicants who have not approached this Court but attempted option (3) (Abdul Fazal) to Q.20 of Series A & its corresponding Questions of other series as their answer thereto, their result be revised and such of applicants including petitioners whose names ultimately find place in select list which is supposed to be revised as a consequence of directions (supra), may be considered for appointment for the post of Teacher Gr. III pursuant to advertisement dated 20th June, 2008. Compliance be made within two months. No costs." In another batch of 26 writ applications, lead case being SBCWP No. 4145 of 2011 - Meenakshi Sharma Versus State & Ors., involving identical controversy, the learned Single Judge, concurred with the judgment and order dated 17th August, 2010 in case of Hari Singh & Ors. (supra) and declined to interfere with the order of termination dated 17th March, 2011. The controversy in the instant appeals at hand, is with reference to the correctness of the answer key to question number 20 of Series 'A' as to which of the authors, namely (1) Colonel Taud, (2) Badayuni, (3) Abul Fazal and (4) Gopinath Sharma; has referred to the war of "Haldi Ghati" as "Khamnor Ka Yudh". The learned Single Judge in the case of Hari Singh & Ors. (supra), was convinced that option number (Abdul Fazal), is the correct answer to question number 20 of Series 'A' and its corresponding question of other series, and consequently issued a direction to the respondent -RPSC to revise the result accordingly within two months; which resulted into termination of the appointment of the appellants.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants reiterating the pleaded contents of the appeals/writ applications, has assailed the action of the State -respondents and RPSC. Firstly, for the appellants were not impleaded as party to the writ proceedings. Secondly, the appellants being successful were duly appointed, had joined the post involved, and were discharging their duties until the impugned order of cancellation dated 17th March, 2011; terminating their employment, without affording any opportunity of hearing. Thirdly, leave to appeal preferred was dismissed as premature. Fourthly, report of the Expert Committee was not subjected to challenge. Fifthly, the learned Single Judge took upon himself the task of an expert body as would be evident from the finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge to the effect that there is no opinion expressed by the Expert Committee for having considered the question on the basis of support of text books of the subject, which were duly approved and prescribed by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan or text books authenticated or recognized by the State or Agency owned by the State Government. Sixthly, if the appellants were accorded an opportunity of hearing, before the learned Single Judge, they could have been successful in an effort to convince the learned Single Judge, of the correctness of the answer key, furnished by the Experts. In order to reinforce the submissions made, the learned counsel placed reliance on the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanpur University, through Vice -Chancellor & Ors. v. Samir Gupta & Ors.: : (1983) 4 SCC 309; Prabodh Verma & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.: : (1984) 4 SCC 251; Girjesh Shrivastava & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.: : (2010) 10 SCC 707; A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak & Ors.: : (1988) 2 SCC 602; Asit Kumar Kar v. State of West Bengal & Ors.: : (2009) 2 SCC 703; Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thankur & Ors.: : (2010) 6 SCC 759; Km. Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission & Ors.: : (2006) 12 SCC 724; Manish Ujwal & Ors. v. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University & Ors.: : (2005) 13 SCC 744; Arun Tewari & Ors. v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh & Ors.: : AIR 1998 SC 331 and the opinion of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Rimjhim Shrimal & Ors.:, 2008 (2) WLC 116.;