CW 8216/09 {1} In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench Judgment ** S.No. / Civil Writ Petition No. / Cause title 1. 8216/2009 Deendayal Sunriwal Versus State & Ors. 2. 8166/2009 Pawan Kumar & Ors Versus RPSC & Ors. 3. 8218/2009 Kapil Singh & Ors Versus RPSC & Ors. 4. 8254/2009 Pinku Sharma & Ors Versus RPSC & Ors. 5. 8255/2009 Shankar lal & Anr Versus RPSC & Ors. 6. 8274/2009 Mukesh Kr Dagar & Ors Versus Secy. RPSC & Ors. 7. 8322/2009 Sanju Kanwar & Anr Versus RPSC & Ors. 8. 8361/2009 Mangilal Damor & Ors Versus RPSC & Ors. 9. 8362/2009 Urmila & Ors Versus RPSC & Ors. 10.8370/2009 Trilok C.Sharma & Ors Versus State & Ors. 11.8422/2009 Mahesh Kumar & Ors Versus Secy. RPSC & Ors. 12.8424/2009 Vinti Agarwal Versus RPSC & Ors. 13.8441/2009 Pryanka Sharma Versus State & Ors. 14.8443/2009 Sarjeet Singh & Ors Versus RPSC & Ors. 15.8515/2009 Alka DOI &Anr. Versus RPSC & Ors. 16.8547/2009 Priynka Kulhari & Ors Versus RPSC & Ors. 17.8579/2009 Kiran Versus State & Ors. 18.8607/2009 Beena Teli & Ors Versus RPSC & Ors. 19.8617/2009 Khushboo Goyal Versus State & Ors. 20.8620/2009 Rakesh Meena & Ors Versus Secy RPSC & Ors. 21.8621/2009 Anita Kumari Sharma Versus State & Ors. 22.8626/2009 Chand Ram & Ors. Versus State & Ors. 23.8629/2009 Ms Raheel Khatoon & Anr Versus RPSC & Ors. 24.8634/2009 Hansa Meena Versus RPSC & Ors. 25.8640/2009 Sarita Kumari & Ors Versus State & Ors. 26.8646/2009 Jagdish C. Dhakar & Ors Versus Secy RPSC & Ors. 27.8651/2009 Satya Pra Sharma Versus State & Ors. 28.8652/2009 Chandrakanta & Ors Versus RPSC & Ors. 29.8654/2009 Bhuranti Bai Versus State & Ors. 30.8655/2009 Jayshree Didwania & Ors Versus RPSC & Ors. 31.8659/2009 Nathoola Mahawar & Ors Versus RPSC & Ors. 32.8660/2009 Radhavallabh Sharma & Ors Versus RPSC & Ors. 33.8664/2009 Hemlata Choudhary Versus RPSC & Ors. 34.8668/2009 Arvinda Sharma Versus State & Ors. 35.8669/2009 Nirmala Verma & Anr Versus RPSC & Ors. 36.8674/2009 Amit Kr Sharma Versus State & Ors. 37.8676/2009 Mamta Choudhary Versus State & Ors. 38.8681/2009 Shashi Kanta Saini Versus RPSC & Ors. 39.8683/2009 Meetha Lal Meena Versus RPSC & Ors. 40.8684/2009 Tara Devi Versus RPSC & Ors. CW 8216/09 {2} 41.8731/2009 Gurmeet Singh & Anr Versus State & Ors. 42.8717/2009 Javed Khan Versus RPSC & Ors. 43.8835/2009 Ashok Kr Sharma & Ors Versus Secy RPSC & Ors. 44.8423/2009 Meena Kumar & Ors Versus RPSC & Ors. 45.8631/2009 Mamta Sharma & Ors Versus RPSC & Ors. 46.8726/2009 Charan Singh Versus RPSC & Ors. 47.8732/2009 Anita Versus RPSC & Ors. 48.8367/2009 Ratnawali Samota Versus RPSC & Ors. 49.8387/2009 Ram Kumar Khoj Versus State & Ors. Date of Order : 04/12/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Advocates for petitioners Sarva Shri Anoop Dhand, Sunil Kr. Singodia, Naveen Dhuwal, Ram Pratap Saini, SR Saini, Mukesh Agarwal, Omvir Saini RD Meena, DS Dhariwal, Prahlad Sharma, Kamal Gupta Sandeep Garssa, Vijay Pathak, Vinod Kr. Sharma, Kuldeep Aswal, Prakash Kasuhik, Manu Bhargava, Nawal S.Sikarwar, Manoj Sharma, RD Singh Naruka, Ram Manohar Sharma, & Miss Shashi Sharma. Mr. SN Kumawat for Mr. SN Kumawat, for respondent-RPSC Mr. Ganesh Meena, Govt. Counsel for State All these petitions being based on common facts involving identical controversy raised at the bar are being decided together at joint request by present order. Being eligible for the posts of Teachers (Sanskrit)/General Teachers Gr.III advertised by Rajasthan Public Service Commission Ajmer (“PSC”) vide notification No.1/Exam. ”Ga”/Adhyapak/Sanskrit Shiksha/2008-09/1125/dated 20/06/2008 (Ann.1/CWP-8216/2009) petitioners submitted their applications. It has not been disputed that all the petitioners are eligible to appear in process CW 8216/09 {3} of selection initiated by PSC for the post of Teachers (Sanskrit)/General Teachers Gr.III but their candidature was rejected only on the premises of either having filled up wrong post Code or failed to fill up post Code in OMR sheet being appended to the application form or having been made available to the applicants through downloading from internet website of respondent-PSC – by virtue whereof, they were not permitted to appear in Teacher (Sanskrit)/General Teachers Gr.III competitive examination, 2008 which was scheduled to be held on 22/07/09 as is evident from press notification dt.02/07/09. These petitioners approached this Court by way of instant petitions. Under interim orders, all of them were provisionally permitted to participate in process of selection and appear in aforesaid competitive examination, 2008 subject to production of proof regarding “Bar Code” and declaration of result of their participation was made subject to permission of this Court. However, pursuant to interim orders, Admit cards were issued to respective petitioners. Counsel for petitioners jointly submit that initially while advertisement was published on 20/06/08 separate post Code was CW 8216/09 {4} to be mentioned by applicant intending to participate pursuant to advertisement, ibid, but upon corrigendum being published by respondent-PSC vide notification No.2/2008- 09/dt.02/09/08 (Ann.3-CWP-8216/09) calling upon incumbents to mention different post Code for Teacher (Sanskrit)/General Teacher Gr.III, confusion was created in their mind while mentioning respective Post code in course of filling up OMR sheet. It is not the case of respondents that petitioners were not eligible to appear in written competitive examination, 2008 having been held pursuant to advertisement dt. 20/06/08 (Ann.1) on the basis of their respective qualifications which they possessed but their only counter is that on account of wrong mention of post Code or failure to do so, their respective applications have been rejected by respondent-PSC. Since the grievance raised at the bar is only confined to wrong mention of post Code or failure to do so by petitioners, that itself in no manner can curtail their right to participate in competitive examination, 2008 (supra) pursuant to advertisement dt.20/06/08 and that apart, once the petitioners being CW 8216/09 {5} eigible have been permitted to appear in the competitive examination, 2008, ibid, even under interim orders, their appears to be a reasonable justification that they may know the final fate of their participation. In the light of what has been observed (supra), all these writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to the respondent-PSC to declare result of participation of the writ petitioners who have appeared under interim orders of this Court, by wide publication & circulation including through internet website of respondent-PSC within fifteen days and if placed in the merit list, respondents are directed to consider them for appointment as per order of their respective merit prepared by respondent-PSC in pursuance of advertisement dt.20/06/08. No costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p5/ 8216CW09-Dec4BarCodeTchrSnsk.doc