NIRMALJIT KAUR,J. - (1.) All the above-mentioned writ petitions shall stand disposed of by this common order as the issue involved is identical.
(2.) The facts in short are that the respondent-Zila Parishad issued the advertisement dated 24.02.2012 for recruitment to the post of Teacher Grade III-2012. The selections made in pursuance to the said advertisement were challenged before this Court. Subsequently, the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 08.12.2014 passed in Manju Choudhary and ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.35/2014) ), while partly allowing the Special Appeals passed the following directions : "We do not find any error of law and agree with the reasoning given by learned Single Judge in Ramdhan Kumawat v. The State of Rajasthan and Anr. (supra), pursuant to which the results have to be 14 revised after fresh evaluation of answers. The revision of select list is thus not complete and the process is still open. In the circumstances, in order to allay any apprehension and to protect the interest of the appellants-petitioners, who were appointed, and are under constant threat on the revision of lists under directions of the Court, without any fault attributed to them, we find it appropriate to quash the order dated 30.8.2013 passed by the Secretary and Commissioner, Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department (Panchayati Raj Primary Education), Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, to the extent that it directs termination of services of those persons, who were ousted from selections on the declaration of the first revised results. We direct that at this stage, they will not be ousted from service. The termination orders passed, if any, consequent to the orders dated 30.8.2013, are set aside. The directions given by learned Single Judge in Ramdhan Kumawat v. The State of Rajasthan and Anr. (supra), namely, that the Expert Committee will issue model answer keys afresh and that the results will be revised in accordance with such keys, will be given effect to, leaving the question of its correctness open. The State Government will be at liberty to pass fresh orders, after revising the results and adjusting equities protecting the interest of the appellants-petitioners, to the extent that they will not be ousted from the select list and will be placed as far as possible at the bottom of the revised select list."
(3.) As a result, all those candidates whose names appeared in the revised list were granted appointment and those who had already stood selected, continued to remain in service in spite of the fact that their names no more figured in the revised list. The outfall is that there were many candidates whose names were not in merit in the first list but as per the revised result got more marks than those who were allowed to continue in service by the order of the High Court even though, they now had less marks than the petitioners. The Special Leave Petition against the judgment and order dated 08.12.2014 was also dismissed. Thus, as on date, all those candidates who had got less marks than the petitioners are continuing to be retained in service and the same has resulted in filing of number of writ petitions by candidates who now have more marks as per the revised result. Thus, the grievance of the petitioners is that in pursuance to the same selection, the candidates less meritorious to the petitioners are continuing in service, whereas, as per the revised result, the petitioners have got more marks than those who are retained in service by the order of the Court. In short, those who had got less marks than the petitioners are still continuing in service.;