Rajasthan High Court: The petitioner filed the present application stating that due to inadvertence the name of Respondent 4 has been typed as Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Pali instead of ‘Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jalore’. 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 and the Division Bench vide judgment dated 08.12.2014 had partly allowed the special appeals. 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 despite the fact that their names no more figured in the revised list. The outcome was that there were many candidates whose names were not in the first merit 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 had less marks than the petitioners.
The Special Leave Petition against the judgment and order dated 08.12.2014 was thereafter dismissed. Thus, the grievance of the petitioners was that in pursuance to the same selection, the candidates less meritorious to the petitioners were continuing in service, whereas, as per the revised result, the petitioners had got more marks than those who were retained in service by the order of the Court. The respondent-State taking into account the grievance of the petitioners tried to workout the possibility to adjust as many candidates as possible from amongst those who had got more marks than the last candidate selected to the extent of the vacancies still available out of the advertised vacancies.
The Court disposing of the writ petition held that the respondent-State would work out the vacancies in each of the Zila Parishads as expeditiously as possible. The Court also directed to prepare a list of the candidates who have got more marks than the last candidate still working with the department following which the candidates as per the ratio of 1:2 of the vacancies available shall be called for the verification of the documents and the appointments shall be given to such eligible candidates as per their merit equivalent to the vacancies available with the department. [Sarita Kumari v. State of Rajasthan, 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 2299, decided on 21.8.2017]
