Honble VERMA, J.–All the petitioners were eligible for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III (Urdu) and possessed the minimum qualifications as provided in the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971. They had applied in response to the advertisement dated 9.10.1996 for such appointment relating to the recruitment for the year 1996-97. Even though number of vacancies for General Teachers were also advertised, but 10 vacancies were to be filled up for Urdu Teacher Gr. III. As per annexure attached to the writ petition No. 4778/1998, the select list of Teacher Gr. III was published and pasted on the notice board. (2). All the petitioners were interviewed. A merit list of 35 of Urdu candidates was prepared. The petitioners were within the list of 10 persons put on merit as per Schedule attached to the writ petition. It is the grievance that even though the petitioners were on merit, but except three persons Rubina, Mumtaz Khan and Abida none else have been given appointment even though respondents were selected as General Teacher and also even though they had not been shows on merit list for Urdu teachers. (3). Minimum qualification was Xth pass of Higher Secondary with STC/B.Ed. The petitioners were interviewed. The name of the petitioner Yasmeen Khanam in Civil Writ Petition No. 1672/1997 was shown at merit No.3 having secured 65.39% marks. It is stated that on the merit list of person named at Sr. No. 1 Mohd. Saleem was already selected for the post of Teacher Gr. II, a higher post and, therefore, he did not join on that post. The petitioners have attached the merit list as under:- S.No. Name of Candidate Fathers Name Percentage 1. Mohd.Saleem Sh. Islam Ahmed 70.86 2. Mohd.Shareef Khan Sh.Bilal Ahmed 68.16 3. Yasmin Khanam Sh. Abdul Rahman 65.38 4. Mufeed Ahmed Sh. Sardar Ahmed 64.29 5. Khaleek Ahmed Sh. Jalil Ahmed 64.16 6. Nikhat Fatima Sh. A. Samad Rizvi 63.74 7. Tasleem Bano Sh. A. Rasheed Nagvi 63.45 8. Mohd.Sajid Sh. A. Samad Zaidi 62.10 9. Ahatram Ahmed Sh. Islam Ahmed 60.95 10. Vijarat Ali Sh. Basharat Ali 60.58 (4). It is the contention that after not joining of the one person on merit, the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 1672/1997 is to be shifted to merit No.1. (5). Tasleem Bano Sh. A. Rasheed Nagvi 63.45 8. Mohd.Sajid Sh. A. Samad Zaidi 62.10 9. Ahatram Ahmed Sh. Islam Ahmed 60.95 10. Vijarat Ali Sh. Basharat Ali 60.58 (4). It is the contention that after not joining of the one person on merit, the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 1672/1997 is to be shifted to merit No.1. (5). Malafides have been alleged in regard to inclusion of the names of respondent No. 4 to 6 and for giving them the appointment as Urdu Teachers saying that they have been favoured and that the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 were not on merit list, but now has been placed on merit list as issued on 11.8.1996. But still have been given the appointment on 8.1.1997 as per order Annex-7 and some bungling is said to have been made in the office of District Education Officer while giving appointments to the Teachers Gr. III including Urdu teachers. The then District Education Officer (Boys), Jaipur I is said to have manipulated the list in the arbitrary manner; the persons whose names were not found in the merit list of Urdu teachers have been so included. It is further submitted that the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 had not even applied for Urdu teachers. He further submits that many vacancies of Urdu teachers are still available and except three vacancies filled up illegally by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4, no other vacancy has been filled up. Even if illegal appointments were made by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and they are allowed to continue, but still as per advertisement seven vacancies are still to be filled up. According to the petitioner 57 vacancies are so available, but for the reasons best known to the respondents, the vacancies are not being filled up. (6). Only three persons were given the appointment i.e. Miss. Rubina Wahid, Miss Mumtaz Khan and Miss Abida. According to the petitioner seven vacancies were still lying vacant as per the advertisement and even otherwise according to the petitioner 40 vacancies are still lying vacant as per Annex.2. The petitioner has attached a copy of the letter (Annex.14) written by the officer giving details of the total vacancies of Urdu Teachers available. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1672/97 (7). This writ petition has been filed by one Yashmeen Khanam. The petitioner has attached a copy of the letter (Annex.14) written by the officer giving details of the total vacancies of Urdu Teachers available. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1672/97 (7). This writ petition has been filed by one Yashmeen Khanam. This petitioner had applied in view of the advertisement dated 9.10.1996, copy of which has been attached as Annex.5 for the Sessions 1996-97 for the post of Assistant Teacher Gr.III (Urdu) called Urdu Teacher for 10 posts. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1674/97 (8). The petitioner was also one of the candidate to the advertisement dated 9.10.1996. She was interviewed and her name was found on the merit list at No. 7 with 62.45% S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4778/97. (9). The petitioner Ahatram Ahmed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4778/97 had obtained 60.95% marks and was placed at merit No. 10. (10). Similar are the petitioners placed on merit in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1733/97. (11). All the above-said writ petitions relate to same advertisement, same allegations, same merit list and challage all illegal appointments. (12). In the reply filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3, the factual position in regard to issuance of advertisement is not denied. It is admitted that the petitioner Yashmeen was originally put at Sr. No. 3 at merit list, but it is stated that on re-checking it was found that the petitioner is not qualified and was not in possessing of qualification prescribed as per advertisement and thus the candidature of the petitioner was rejected. It is further submitted that even if the petitioner has been put on merit list and vacancy made available but the petitioner has no defeasible right to say that the vacancy should be filled up. The affidavit has been filed by one OIC Shri S.M. Sharma, Additional District Education Officer (Legal). (13). However, it is not denied that the petitioner Yashmeen in much higher qualified than the required qualifications. She is not only graduate in Urdu but post graduate in Urdu subject and it was only after verification of testimonials at the time of interview and finding her eligible she was allowed to appear for the interview and also declared meritorious in merit. (14). She is not only graduate in Urdu but post graduate in Urdu subject and it was only after verification of testimonials at the time of interview and finding her eligible she was allowed to appear for the interview and also declared meritorious in merit. (14). In the case of Tasleem Bano, the respondent has taken a stand that the petitioner does not fulfil the qualification as one of the subject of Urdu whereas the petitioner possesses Higher Secondary School examination with Urdu as one of the subject. Documents were duly verified and after finding them to be order, she was put on merit. She otherwise has passed B.A. examination of Urdu as one of main subject apart from being B.Ed. She is also Post-graduate in Urdu M.A. from University of Rajasthan. (15). The petitioner Ahatram is qualified Graduate in Urdu, M.A.(Urdu) and B.Ed. (16). In the merit list as published for urdu Teachers the name of three private respondents were not appearing initially and, therefore, the officer concerned was called in the court with the record to show that merit list in regard to Urdu teachers. The complete record has been produced. The register is fully paged upto the page of 220 relating to General teachers. Upto the page 220 every page is signed at the bottom by 3 or 4 officers. After page 221 there are three pages marked 1, 2 and 3 which are not signed by any person at the bottom or any where else and again for Urdu teachers there are two more pages which are no numbered but signed at the bottom. Immediately subsequent to that, there are as many as three pages which bear the signatures at the bottom. There is interpolation on the said page which is apparent on the face of it. Three names have been added on the merit over and above the persons who were on merit i.e. one Rubin at No. 1, Saleem at 1-A and Abida at 1-B have been shown. The entries of these persons have been inserted in between the lines and even in the printed column which I have marked and after above-said three persons who have been now given the posting and selected there are names of Mohd. The entries of these persons have been inserted in between the lines and even in the printed column which I have marked and after above-said three persons who have been now given the posting and selected there are names of Mohd. Sarif Khan, Yashmeen, Mufeed Ahmed, Khaleef Ahmed, Nikhat Fatima, Tasleem Bano, Mohd Sajid Zaidi and there is another insertion of Ahatram at No. 8-A which is also written in between the lines, Ziyarat Ali, Sayed Mohd. Anwar at 9-A, Tahira at No. 10, Anwar Ahmed at No. 11, i.e. persons at Sr. No. 1, 1-A,1-B have been added subsequently. Earlier to the list as mentioned above, another list is prepared wherein names of Abida Bano. Mohd. Sarif Khan, Yasmeen Khanam, Mufeed Ahmed, Khaleef Ahmed, Nikhat Fatima, Razia Sultana, Tasleem Bano, Mohd. Sagid Zaidi, Ahatram Ahmed, Vijarat Ali, Sayed Mohd. Umar Taheri, Mumtaz Khan and Anwar Ahmed have been shown as merit Nos. 1 to 11 including 6-A, 8-A and 9-A, but Rubina, Mumtaz Khan and Saleem Khan have been inserted above them as Urdu teacher at No. 1, 1-A and again Urdu teacher 1-A and Abida Bano who was at Sr. No. 1 has been shown as 1-A. (17). Finding such situation and interpolation over original serial number by bringing private respondents as on merit No.1, 1-A and 1-B etc., it become necessary to call the officer to explain the discrepancy. (18). On 23.4.2001, one Shri R.K. Jain Director, Education Department was present who admitted that there seems some irregularity committed in regard to posting of teachers and had asked time to further verify this fact. (19). The original register containing the merit of the candidates as produced is suspicious in so far as under:- (1) for the General teachers first 220 pages as numbers by hand on the right top corner are in continuation with black ink and every page is signed at the bottom by as many as four officers; (2) immediately thereafter there are three pages which have been marked with different ink, but not signed by any officer; (3) again there are three pages which are not paged but signed; (4) then there are three pages on the top of which it has been written `Urdu Adhyapak and the result relates to Urdu teachers and have been signed by four officers and have been similarly paged as of general teachers in black ink. (20). (20). These three pages seem to be the original result whereas prior to pages attached have been added lateron. The last three pages of merit of Urdu teachers with black ink paging and signed by 3/4 officers at the bottom do contain the interpolation while renumbering the merit as U-1 (Urdu) against the name of Rubina Vahid, U-1A against the name of Saleem Ahmed and U-1B against the name of Abida Bano. It is not understood that while preparing merit where was the necessity of giving merit number as U-1, U-1A and U-1B even otherwise these were the same names who are private respondents and have been added lateron at the top which is clear on the face of the Register. (Photo-Stat copy of this page has been ordered to be placed on record and made a part of this order.) (21). Faced with the present situation, the officer concerned who was present in the court submits on the basis of record in his possession that certain objections were filed by the number of candidates including the three respondents who have been put on the top on the same day when the result was declared that even though they had been selected as General Teachers, but they had requested to be considered towards Urdu Teachers. (22). Application was moved by Rubina Vahid on 9.11.1996 which is on record wherein she says that she was omitted to apply for Urdu teacher, but has been selected towards General teacher and, therefore, had made a request for transferring from General to Urdu teacher. On the same day the officer had passed the order on the application itself that she may be transferred as Urdu Teacher. Similarly, the position of Abida Bano who was at merit on General teachers at No. 583 and had given application on 18.11.1996 stating the same fact making the similar request as made by other candidates and the officer, District Education Officer, had immediately passed an order on the application that she be also transferred as Urdu teacher and included in the merit of the Urdu teachers. (23). However, so far Mumtaz Khan is concerned, she had stated that she had actually applied for Urdu teacher and, therefore, she be transferred towards Urdu teacher from General teacher which was also agreed to on the same day. Mumtaz Khan was on merit list No. 378 of General teachers. (24). (23). However, so far Mumtaz Khan is concerned, she had stated that she had actually applied for Urdu teacher and, therefore, she be transferred towards Urdu teacher from General teacher which was also agreed to on the same day. Mumtaz Khan was on merit list No. 378 of General teachers. (24). Vide letter dated 16.9.1996, copy of which is placed on record of this court, the District Education Officer, Jaipur had given the number of vacancies to be filled up from general teachers were 148. Physical Training Instructors-20. Urdu teachers-10 and Sindhi Teachers - 2 i.e. 10 posts of Urdu teachers were to be filled up. (25). The name of Mumtaz Khan is also incorporated in the list of General Teachers at Sr. No. 378 with the remark that `has been transferred to Urdu teacher. Abida Banos name was incorporated for the selection of General teacher at Sr. No. 583 and was transferred to Urdu Teacher. The name of Rubina Vahid is also incorporated in the list of General teachers at Sr. No. 228. (26). It is really sad to know, that the respondent has not came up with the clean hands in the written statement filed by them in any of the case above. It has not been stated in the written statement that these three persons were added over and above of the merit list already prepared for Urdu teachers. It has also not been stated in the written statement that the private respondents were as a matter of fact selected as General teachers. It was also concealed that the private respondents were shifted to Urdu teacher list on their application made after the result had been declared. It has also not been stated in the written statement that as a matter of fact the private respondents who were on the select list as general teachers after bringing them on the list of Urdu teachers have been brought on merit over and above the list of Urdu teachers already prepared. It was the bounded duty of the respondent to have stated the true facts in the written statement. For the reasons best known to the respondents, all these facts have been deliberately concealed. Had the original record not been called, the irregularity or illegality committed by the respondent would have escaped attention of the court causing injustice to the deserving candidates. For the reasons best known to the respondents, all these facts have been deliberately concealed. Had the original record not been called, the irregularity or illegality committed by the respondent would have escaped attention of the court causing injustice to the deserving candidates. It is also surprising to see that after the list of selectees on the General teachers and Urdu teachers were published, the respondents had received objections from certain candidates of General teachers and without any verification or dealing with the matter in accordance with the facts the order had passed on the application itself to transfer the private respondents from General teachers to Urdu teachers there and then which smacks of arbitrary action without application of mind by the officer who so ever has done so. It is also clear from the record that initially the selection list of Urdu teachers in accordance with the merit was published which did not contain the names of the private respondent and on the so called objections by the said respondent, their names have been incorporated over and above already selected persons and given their merit Nos. as 1, 1A and 1B. (27). From the above-said facts and the material produced, there is no escape but to hold that some person in the department had tried to interpolate the record by changing the merit list in regard to Urdu teachers and that requires a complete departmental action or even criminal proceedings against such persons. Sanctity of keeping the fair record of merit can only create confidence in the candidates for a fair selection. If the merit lists are changed in the manner it has been so done in the present case, the un-employed youth would even loose the faith in the selection process. The then District Education officer has definitely acted in the manner which was not required of him. He has even gone to file a written statement to say that the petitioners were not even qualified even though after scrutiny of the forms, testimonials, the interviews were held, the petitioners were selected and put on merits. They all are graduates or Post-graduates in Urdu subject. Written statement seems to have not been prepared by applying minds to the real facts of the case and false averment had been made deliberately to mislead the court on facts with motive of concealment. (28). They all are graduates or Post-graduates in Urdu subject. Written statement seems to have not been prepared by applying minds to the real facts of the case and false averment had been made deliberately to mislead the court on facts with motive of concealment. (28). The person who files the written statement can be held liable for contempt or for perjury if the facts are concealed or true facts are not brought to the notice of the court. The officer-in-charge can definitely be appointed for the purpose of reporting day to day proceedings of the court or orders passed by the court, but the written statement should always be filed by the person who has seen the record and can be held responsible if it is found that wrong facts are deliberately stated or relevant material is concealed. The Head of the Department cannot avoid his responsibility if any facts are concealed or if any purjary is committed in filing the written statement. (29). Nothing has been brought in the written statement as to why for the advertisement of 10 vacancies of Urdu teachers which vacancies are still lying vacant or it is not denied that more than 40 vacancies of Urdu teachers are living vacant, even of previous year, only three persons had been appointed and that too by interpolating the merit list. It was stated at the bar that even these three persons appointed have either been promoted or left the services. It was stated at the bar that even these three persons appointed have either been promoted or left the services. But without going into this aspect, it is a fit case where a direction is required to be given to the respondents to the effect that:- (1) to abide by the merit list which was initially prepared containing the names of the persons on merit including the petitioners and they should be considered for appointment immediately; (2) the appointment of private respondents shall be deemed to have been cancelled for being not on merit list of Urdu teachers and having been brought on merit in suspicious circumstance, but in case any of such persons has already been promoted, in such situation, no action is required to be taken and they shall be entitled to continue in the job; (3) the Chief Secretary is directed to hold a proper enquiry in this matter and shall issue instructions for stream lining the selections so made and specially of making the register of selection in such a manner that neither any of the page in the register can be removed or substituted or added. Each page of the register should be paged by print as to avoid interpolation or changing or removing or adding of pages which is apparent from the register and selections made in this case: such improvement is required to be made an are necessary and definite instructions are required to be issued by the Chief Secretary for avoiding such a situation. (30). With the above-said direction, the writ petitions are allowed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- in each writ petition which shall be initially borne by the State but can be recovered from the officer concerned who are found to be responsible for making interpolation in the register of selection with intimation to the Registry of this Court. (31). Before parting with the judgment. I am constrained to say that the person who has filed the affidavit accompanying the written statement has tried to conceal the true facts from this court and has also filed false affidavit to the effect that the petitioners were not given the appointment for the reason that they had not fulfilled the qualifications were admittedly the petitioners were put on merit at high up after being interviewed and selected. All the petitioners are Post-graduates in Urdu i.e. much more highly qualified then the prescribed qualifications as per advertisement. In my opinion, a deliberate attempt has been made. Notice be issued to Shri S.N. Sharma Addl. D.E.O. (Legal), Jaipur who has filed the affidavit and also the Head of Department, Director. Shri R.K. Jain who is ultimate incharge of the department for contempt of court and also for perjury. Notice shall be sent by registry for 6.9.2001. Copy of this order shall accompany the notice as to enable the contemnors to file reply before this court on or before 6.9.2001. The contemnors shall be present in this court on that gate. A separate file shall be opened by the registry.