SBCWP3133/1997 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3133/1997 Dharampal Taxak Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others Date of Order ::: 19.03.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq None present for petitioner Shri S.D. Khaspuria, Additional Government Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- Case called. No one appeared on behalf of petitioner even in second round. This writ petition was filed by petitioner Dharampal Taxak way back in the year 1997 with prayer that respondents be directed to call him for screening for the post of Teacher Gr.III and, on finding him eligible, he be given appointment on said post; further prayer has been made that action of respondents in award of bonus marks to candidates belonging to same District and rural area, be held to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Although the petitioner has stated in the writ petition that he applied in response to the advertisement issued by Zila Parishad, Churu, for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III SBCWP3133/1997 // 2 // but he has not given particulars whether any person lower in merit than him was appointed. Shri S.D. Khaspuria, learned Additional Government Counsel appearing for respondents, though opposed writ petition, but case of petitioner is covered by direction issued by the Supreme Court in Kailash Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan – (2002) 6 SCC 562 (Para 46), wherein their Lordships observed as under:- “Having due regard to the rival contentions adverted to above and keeping in view the factual scenario and the need to balance the competing claims in the light of acceptance of prospective overruling in principle, we consider it just and proper to confine the relief only to the petitioners who moved the High Court and to make appointments made on or after 18.11.1999 in any of the districts subject to the claims of the petitioners. Accordingly, we direct:- 1. The claims of the writ petitioners should be considered afresh in the light of this judgment vis-a-vis the candidates appointed on or after 18.11.1999 or those in the select list who are yet to be appointed. On such consideration, if those writ petitioners are found to have superior merit in case the bonus marks of 10% and/or 5% are excluded, they should be offered appointments, if necessary, by displacing the candidates appointed on or after 18.11.1999. 2. The appointments made upto 17.11.1999 need not be reopened and reconsidered in the light of the law laid down in this judgment. 3. Writ Petition No.542 of 2000 filed in this Court under Article 32 is hereby dismissed as it was filed nearly one year after the judgment of the High SBCWP3133/1997 // 3 // Court and no explanation has been tendered for not approaching the High Court under Article 226 at an early point of time.” In Kulbhan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Another – S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6590/1999 decided on 05.02.2003, Yogendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Panchayati Raj Department & Others – S.B. Civil Review Petition No.10/2003, decided on 07.04.2004, Dharamveer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others – S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2448/2001, decided on 25.08.2004, and Nemi Singh & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others – S.B. Civil Writ Petition No3785/2003, decided on 17.08.2009, the respondents were directed to consider the case of petitioners therein, in the light of ratio of judgment of Supreme Court in Kailash Chand Sharma's (Supra) especially Para No.46 thereof, because they filed writ petitions prior to judgment of the Larger Bench of this Court. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to file a representation before appropriate authority, who shall, in its turn, consider the same in the light of directions contained in Para No.46 of judgment of the Supreme Court and, if petitioner is found entitled to appointment, grant him appointment with effect from the date less SBCWP3133/1997 // 4 // meritorious candidates were appointed. For the intervening period, however, petitioner shall be entitled to only notional benefits. Whole exercise in compliance of this judgment be completed within three months from the date the petitioner files a representation along with copy of this judgment before the respondents. A copy of this judgment be also sent to petitioner for information. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//