Honble TIBREWAL, J.–It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that as per criteria, the petitioner was entitled to get 81.12 as total marks, and persons having less marks have been given appointment in the posts of Teacher Gr. III. It is also contended that Dy. Director, Primary Education, Rajasthan vide his letter dated 15th October, 1996, addressed to respondent No.2, has clarified that petitioner isentitled to get bonus marks of a bonafide resident of District Jhalawar. It is further contended tht the petitioner made representation on December 19, 1996 to respondent No.2 but the same has not been decided as yet. (2). It is really distressing that Public authorities and Officers do not feel their responsibility in deciding representations made by aggrieved parties with regard totheir grievances. This court has been stressing time and again that as and when any representation or notice for demand of justice is received by public authority/officer, they are duty bound to decide the same. Much of the litigation before this Court or other courts is due to inaction on the part of public authorities in not deciding the grievances of the public as and when they are made to them either by way ofa representation or notice for demand of justice. Much of the unnecessary litigation can be avoided if public authorities do realise their accountability and have transparency in their action. Their present attitude cannot be appreciated as it increases not only unwanted litigation in the courts but also causes huge loss of public money. It is distressing that in the instant case, the concerned authority failed toperform its duty and the poor petitioner had to approach this Court. The respondents should feel that for their inaction and not intimating the concerned persons in time the reasons of their not getting benefit of bonus marks etc., seekers of job have to approach this Court and spent a lot of money. While making appointments of public authorities are expected to be fair, reasonable and transparent. A candi-date, who is denied appointment, has a right to know the reasons of his rejection. If public bodies act with sensitiveness and transparency they shall be doing a lot of good to the persons who want to know the reasons of rejection of their candidature. (3). A candi-date, who is denied appointment, has a right to know the reasons of his rejection. If public bodies act with sensitiveness and transparency they shall be doing a lot of good to the persons who want to know the reasons of rejection of their candidature. (3). Be that as it may, this petition is disposed of in the following terms :- (i) the petitioner shall be free to make fresh representation to the con- cerned authority with two weeks from today, with a certified copy of this order, detailing out the factual aspects and her grievance; (ii) If any such representation is made, the same shall be considered objectively and decided by a speaking order in next four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. In case, it is found that the petitioner has been wrongly denied appointment, necessary orders shall be passed in her favour. In case her representation is rejected, she shall be intimated forthwith the result with reasons; (iii) It is made clear that after receiving representation, if the same is not decided by the authority, the petitioner shall be free to file a contempt petition against the erring officer and in that situation it shall be seriously viewed by this Court. (4). A copy of this order be sent to the Special Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur so that he may issue necessary circular/directions to Zila Parishads/Panchayat Samities and concerned officers to the effect that as and when they get any representation or a notice for demand of justice in relation to any grievance, the same be decided by them objec-tively and decision with reasons should be communicated to the persons concerned to avoid unnecessary litigation and loss of public money.