Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THE present set of writ petitions pertains to selection or appointment of the petitioners in pursuance of Advertisement dated 9.4.2007 for the post of Sub -Inspector (Armed Police), Platoon Commandar (Sub -Inspector, RAC), Sub -Inspector (Mewar Bhil Corps and MBC).
(2.) BOTH the learned counsels at Bar submitted that the controversy involved in the present writ petitions is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Jai Kishan Soni V/s. State of Rajasthan - SBCWP No. 3905/2013 decided on 22.4.2014. The operative portion of that judgment is quoted below for ready reference: 16. Thus the purported exercise by the respondents to give effect to the judgment of learned Single Judge in the case of Ramnarayan Bhanwaria (supra) is apparently even contrary to the judgment itself, but the revised list made by the Respondents taking into account only the raw marks was ignored in order to give appointment to the petitioners before this Court in Ramnarayan Bhanwaria (supra) misconstruing the last part of the order that the relief is restricted to the petitioners only, the respondents have taken it as if all those petitioners before this Court in the case of Ramnarayan Bhanwaria (supra) on the basis of their raw marks have to be offered the appointment irrespective of the fact that the persons with higher raw marks are already appointed in the cadre post of Sub -Inspector (Armed Police) like the present petitioner and petitioner's cadre was changed in the second part of the impugned order Annex. 5 dtd. 22.3.2013 while he was shifted from the category of Sub -Inspector (Armed Police) to the category of Platoon Commander (RAC). Even, in rem part of the judgment in the case of Ramnarayan Bhanwaria (supra) where the learned Single Judge following the Supreme Court Judge in the case of Sanjay Singh V/s. U.P. Public Service Commission (supra) held that scaled marks have to be ignored as scaling in the subject like Hindi was illegal but appointments were to be offered without disturbing the appointments already made and only against the future vacancies taking into account the raw marks of such petitioners only and relief to that extent was restricted only to the petitioners before this Court at that point of time. This mis -application of the judgment by the respondents is precisely the issue sought to be corrected by the present petitioner in the present writ petition. 17. Saving of appointment of the petitioner was already done by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ramnarayan Bhanwaria (supra) as quoted above, but that finding of learned Single Judge seems to have been forgotten by the respondents while passing the impugned order Annex. 5 dtd. 3905/2013 specially para 2 thereof and thus adversely effecting the present petitioner. The learned Single Judge in that case has also directed that the appointment now to be offered in pursuance of the judgment in the case of Ramnarayan Bhanwaria (supra) rendered on 20.09.2011 has to be given against the future vacancies and therefore, there was no question of changing the cadre of the present petitioner in the purported exercise of giving effect to the judgment of this Court in the case of Ramnarayan Bhanwaria (supra). Therefore, this writ petition in the considered opinion of this Court deserves to be allowed. 18. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and impugned order dated 22.03.2013 Annex. 5 qua the present petitioner is quashed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith. By the agreement of learned counsel for the parties, these writ petitions are disposed of in same terms. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned.;