MADHU SONI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These batch of writ petitions, the number and particulars of which have been given in the annexed Schedule, have been filed by the petitioners seeking direction to the respondents to consider their case for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III from the date on which the persons junior to the petitioners/less meritorious than petitioners were appointed. Petitioners also claimed consequential benefits including the arrears of salary with interest etc. A relief has also been sought to the effect that if the vacant posts are not available then the respondent State Government be directed to sanction the posts and, in the alternative, to consider petitioners' case in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kailash Chand Sharma's case. All these batch of writ petitions involve identical questions of facts and law and, therefore, they are being disposed of together by this common Order taking SBCWP No. 3512/2003, Madhu Soni v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., as a leading case.

(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that in pursuance of the advertisement No. 18/98, petitioner applied for the post of Teacher Grade III; she secured 60.74% marks in the select list Annx.2; bonus marks had been wrongly awarded by the respondents and the same was declared illegal and unconstitutional by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kailash Chand's case and after deducting the bonus marks, a fresh merit list of the candidates having placed in the merit list dated 25-6-99 only was issued and the fresh merit list was not issued as per rule 274(i) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short, "the Rules 1996"); the number of post increased from 407 to 520 and after giving appointment to 407 candidates, 113 posts remained vacant; persons lower in merit than the petitioner have been given appointment and she has been refused appointment; she made the representations Annx. 4 and 5 but to no avail. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.