Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) THE petitioner after having successfully participated in the recruitment process for appointment to the post of Primary School Teacher, in response to the advertisement published by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short 'Commission'), in the year 2004, was accorded appointment vide order dated 25th April, 2005. However, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 29th June, 2005, and therefore, instituted the instant writ proceedings praying for the following relief(s): - - "i) Writ of mandamus of any other writ direction in he following nature may kindly be issued. ii) "The order dated 20.06.2005 (Annexure -1) may kindly be set aside and quashed with all consequential benefits and it may kindly be declared that the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service w.e.f. 25.04.2005, the date when she had initially joined her duties on the post of Primary School Teacher." iii) That the respondent may be directed to pay salary to the petitioner for the post of Primary Teacher since 25.04.2005, the date on which she joined services on the post of Primary teacher Elementary Education. iv) Any other order or direction which may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be passed in favour of the petitioner."
(2.) SHORN off unnecessary details, the indispensable material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised herein needs to be first noticed. The petitioner participated in the recruitment process in response to the advertisement issued by the respondent -Commission in the year 2004. The result of the recruitment process involved herein, was declared on 2nd June, 2004. In response to the offer of appointment dated 12th April, 2005, the petitioner joined her duties on 25th April, 2005. However, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 29th June, 2005, without any reason or rhyme. During the pendency of the writ proceedings the State -respondents vide order dated 2nd February, 2006, appointed the petitioner afresh and the petitioner joined her duties, in compliance thereof, on 16th February, 2006. In response to the notice of the writ application the State -respondents have filed their counter affidavit admitting the fact of cancellation of the appointment order of the petitioner, vide impugned order dated 29th June, 2005. However, in the additional plea the State -respondents have detailed out that vide order dated 2nd February, 2006, the petitioner has been accorded appointment as Teacher at Primary School Boriyapada, Panchayat Samiti, Pipalkhunt as per her merit number 19555, and she has joined her duties, and therefore, there is no grievance for redressal and nothing material survives for adjudication in the writ application, which has, in fact, become infructuous.
(3.) MS . Purvi Mathur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application strenuously argued that the petitioner's name found place in the merit order at serial number 19555, as would be evident from the offer of appointment dated 12th April, 2005 (Annexure -2). The offer of appointment was cancelled, terminating the services of the petitioner, vide impugned order dated 29th June, 2005, while retaining persons in service who were far below in the merit list than the petitioner. The petitioner addressed several representations, which evoked no response.;