PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. - (1.) The grievance of the petitioner is that he could not appear on stipulated date for document verification for the post of LDC. The Jaipur Bench of this Hon'ble Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18992/2017 (Brijesh Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) and other connected writ petitions, decided on 08.11.2017 have disposed of the writ petitions by giving directions to the concerned Zila Parishad that they should provide one more opportunity to the petitioners in those writ petitions for their document verification. This Hon'ble Court while passing the aforesaid order had fixed the date of document verification to be of 16.11.2017 and 17.11.2017. Since the matter pertains to Jaipur Bench of this Hon'ble Court and all the petitions pending before Principal Seat of this Hon'ble Court were decided, therefore, it would not be suffice to follow the same dates i.e. 16.11.2017 and 17.11.2017 for reverification.
(2.) In the case of Brijesh Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra), this Hon'ble Court has passed the following order:- "Since, the present batch of writ petitions has been filed by the petitioners with a common grievance, therefore, the same has been taken up together and decided by this common order. The petitioners are the candidates, who have participated in the selection process for the post of Teacher Grade-III. The recruitment process was initiated by issuing advertisement in 2013 by the different Zila Parishad for making the appointment on the aforesaid post. The result of the said examination was declared in August, 2017 and the cutoff marks were also issued by calling the candidates 1.5 times in proportion to the vacancies advertised. The required candidates when failed to join the Department, the respondents issued the second list in October, 2017 and again issued the cutoff marks of the second list and notified the candidates for document verification in the same ratio of 1.5 times against the vacancies, which were available. The present petitioners are the candidates, who could not attend the office of Zila Parishad concerned, for document verification on the dates given by the Zila Parishad concerned. Grievance raised by the petitioners in the present writ petitions is about the document verification carried out only by issuing advertisement in the newspaper and not by personal information sent to them. The petitioners have pleaded that the respondents ought to have sent personal information to the petitioners for document verification. The petitioners have enumerated their various difficulties in not appearing on the stipulated date for document verification.
(3.) The petitioners have also taken a plea that the advertisement was issued in the year 2013 and due to various litigations, the document verification was scheduled after a gap of about 4 years, that too, after revision of result. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that Clause No. 16 of the advertisement issued for making recruitment process clearly shows the manner of submitting the online applications by the incumbents. Counsel submits that recruiting agency had clearly given out the instructions to the effect that the candidates will be informed about their roll number and Examination Center on their E-mail ID/Mobile Number. Counsel submits that if the Department was obliged to inform the candidates about their roll number and Examination Center, the non-communication of personal intimation about document verification is much more fatal for the candidates, counsel has submitted that inclusion of petitioners names in the merit list for consideration for appointment results into a crystallized right and as such, at this juncture, there is more responsibility on the part of Recruiting Agency to send the intimation to the candidates by personal mode. Mr. S.K. Gupta, AAG, has appeared on behalf of the respondents and opposed the aforesaid prayer of the petitioners. Counsel for the respondents contended that the requisite intimation was published in the newspaper by the Zila Parishad concerned and also uploaded on the web-site of the Department. Mr. S.K. Gupta AAG also submits that there was no requirement of sending the intimation to the candidates by any other mode and in particularly the personal service. Mr. S.K. Gupta, AAG, submits that appointments were made in the year 2015 itself, but due to controversy raised about minimum marks obtained in RTET, the matter travelled to the Supreme Court and as such, the Department was to make appointments after the judgment of the Apex Court. Counsel for the respondent has further submitted that initially the appointments were given only to those candidates, who have obtained minimum 60% marks in RTET and all other candidates were not eligible. Counsel for the respondent also submitted that the candidates who had applied in pursuance of the advertisement issued in 2013, should have been vigilant and they were required to keep track of the advertisements and once the intimation was uploaded on the web-site, no other mode of service is contemplated either in the Rules or in the instructions. Mr. S.K. Gupta, AAG, has drawn attention of the Court towards Sub-Instruction No. (9) of the Instructions No. 19 wherein general instructions were given. Counsel for the respondents submits that all the candidates were informed that all information relating to the Examination was available on the web-site i.e. www.examtgt.rajasthan.gov.in. I have considered the rival submissions made by both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is not disputed that the selection process for the post of Teacher Grade-III was conducted and set in motion in 2013 and due to various round of litigations, finally the second list of selected candidates with cutoff marks was issued in August, 2017. ;