JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 20-6-2002 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned orders dated 04-06-2002 (Annex. 4) passed by the Collector, Hanumangarh by which the application of respondent No. 7 Tarawanti was accepted and it was directed that the respondent No. 7 be given posting as para-teacher at the place of her choice namely, Bhirani and the order dated 10-6-2002 (Annex. 5) passed by the Collector, Hanumangarh by which the respondent No. 7 was selected as para-teacher against the post of village Bhirani and the letter dated 12-6-2002 by which Block Reference Centre Incharge, D.P.E.P. (respondent No. 6) relieved the petitioner with effect from 12-6-2002 from the training course of para-teacher be quashed and set aside. 2. The facts as put forward by the petitioner are as under : i) That the respondents issued an advertisement on 6-5-2002 whereby applications were invited for appointment on the post of para-teacher under the Rajiv Gandhi Pathshala Scheme for Distt. Hanumangarh. ii) That the petitioner also submitted her application and interviews were held on 20-5-2002 before the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee declared the result and the petitioner was declared successful. A copy of the result dated 30-5-2002 is marked as Annex. 2 and a list of successful candidates is also annexed with it. iii) The further case of the petitioner is that she was selected as para- teacher against the post of village Bhirani whereas respondent No. 7 was selected as para-teacher against the post of village Serda. NOTE : It may be stated here that the petitioner only applied for the post of Village Bhirani and the list of successful candidates for the post of para- Teacher against the post of village Bhirani is marked as ANNEX. 13 at page 74 wherein, the respondent No. 7 was shown at serial No. 2 in the merit list of para-teacher against the post of village Bhirani, whereas the petitioner was shown at serial No. 3 in the merit list of para-teacher against the post of village Bhirani and furthermore respondent No. 7 simultaneously also applied for the post of para-teacher against the post of village Serda where she stood at Serial No. 2 in the merit list of para-teacher against the post of village Serda. Thus, respondent No. 7 was declared successful for both, namely for the post para-teacher against the vacancy of Village Bhirani as well as for the post of para-teacher against the vacancy of village Serda for the post of para-teacher against the vacancy of village Bhirani the respondent No. 7 stood at serial No. 2 i.e. higher in merit than the petitioner as she stood at serial No. 3 in the merit list below the respondent No. 7. Consequently, thereafter, the petitioner was sent for training of para-teacher against the post of Village Bhirani and respondent No. 7 was sent for training against the post of Serda. iv) Further case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of her selection as para-teacher against the post of village Bhirani, she joined training course and gave her reporting on 1-6-2002 through Annex 3. v) The further case of the petitioner is that through letter dated 21-5-2002 (Annex. 9), the respondent No. 7 made a request before respondent No. 4 (Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Bhadra) that she should be selected as para-teacher against the post of village Serda and on that application. (Annex. 9), her prayer was accepted and she was recommended for selection as para-teacher against the post of village Serda. The respondent No. 7 made another application dated 21-5-2002 (Annex. 10) before respondent No. 4 that since she had been selected as Para-teacher against the post of village Bhirani, therefore she should be appointed as para-teacher against the post of village Bhirani. The application dated 21-5-2002 (Annex. 10) was rejected by the concerned authority on the ground that she had already been selected as Para- Teacher against the post of village Serda and, the petitioner was recommended for the post of village Bhirani by the same order. vi) The further case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 7 became aggrieved from the order dated 21-5-2002 passed on her application dated 21-5-2002 (Annex. 10) and, therefore, he moved an application before the Collector, Hanumangarh. The Collector, Hanumangarh through impugned order dated 4-6-2002 (Annex. 4) accepted the application of respondent No. 7 and ordered that she should be given posting of her choice at the place Bhirani. (It is clarified here that in the application which was presented by respondent No. 7 before the Collector, Hanumangarh, the petitioner was not made party by respondent No. 7 and the order dated 4-6-2002 (Annex. 4) accepted the application of respondent No. 7 and ordered that she should be given posting of her choice at the place Bhirani. (It is clarified here that in the application which was presented by respondent No. 7 before the Collector, Hanumangarh, the petitioner was not made party by respondent No. 7 and the order dated 4-6-2002 (Annex. 4) was passed in absence of the petitioner.) vi) In pursuance of order dated 4-6-2002, the Collector passed an order dated 10-6-2002 (Annex. 5) by which respondent No. 7 was selected as Para-Teacher against the post of village Bhirani. vii) That in compliance of order dated 10-6-2002 (Annex. 5), the respondent No. 6 passed an order dated 12-6-2002 (Annex. 6) by which the petitioner who was undergoing training for Para-Teacher with effect from 1-6-2002 was relieved on 12-6-2002. viii) In this writ petition, the orders dated 4-6-2002 (Annex. 4), 10-6-2002 (Annex. 5) and order dated 12-6-2002 (Annex. 6) have been challenged. 3. In this writ petition, the main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since she has been selected as para-teacher against the post of village Bhirani and in pursuance of that she has joined training course and was undergoing training, subsequent orders dated 4-6-2002 (Annex. 4) and 10-6-2002 (Annex. 5) passed by the Collector without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner are null and void and therefore, the orders dated 4-6-2002, 10-6-2002 and 12-6-2002 (Annexures 4, 5 and 6 respectively) should be set aside. 4. Reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondent No. 7 and it has been submitted by respondent No. 7 that so far as application dated 21-5-2002 (Annex. 9) is concerned, the order which was passed on should not have been treated as passed with her consent in view of the fact that on the same date she had given another application (Annex. 10), therefore, in all respects her consent for Serda should not have been accepted and the order which was passed on the application dated 21-5-2002 (Annex. 10) was without jurisdiction and the orders were rightly passed by the Collector, Hanumangarh dated 4-6-2002 (Annex. 4) and 10-6-2002 (Annex. 5) and furthermore since she was placed in the merit above the petitioner in the merit list (Annex. 10) was without jurisdiction and the orders were rightly passed by the Collector, Hanumangarh dated 4-6-2002 (Annex. 4) and 10-6-2002 (Annex. 5) and furthermore since she was placed in the merit above the petitioner in the merit list (Annex. 13) of para-teacher against the vacancy of village Bhirani, therefore, she has got better claim for the post of Para-Teacher against the vacancy of village Bhirani in comparison to the petitioner. In these circumstances, the writ petition should be dismissed. 5. I have heard both and perused the record. 6. There is no dispute on the point that the respondent No. 7 applied for the post of Para-Teacher against the vacancy of village Bhirani as well as village Serda and she was declared successful for both the posts, whereas the petitioner only applied for the post of para-teacher against the vacancy of village Bhirani and she was selected as para-teacher against the post of village Bhirani, but was placed below respondent No. 7 in the merit. 7. There is also no dispute on the point that on 21-5-2002, the respondent No. 7 moved two applications (Annexures 9 and 10) before the concerned authority and through order passed on application dated 21-5-2002 (Annex. 9) the respondent No. 7 was recommended for selection as para-teacher against the post of village Serda and through order passed on application dated 21-5-2002 (Annex. 10), her prayer for selection as Para teacher against the post of village Bhirani was rejected and rather the petitioner was recommended for selection as para-teacher against the post of village Bhirani. 8. There is also no dispute on the point that thereafter the petitioner joined the training course of Para-Teacher against the post of village Bhirani on 1-6-2002. 9. There is also no dispute on the point that respondent No. 7 moved an application before the Collector, Hanumangarh and in that application the petitioner was not made a party and the Collector passed an order dated 4-6-2002 (Annex. 4) by which it was ordered that the respondent No. 7 be given posting at the place of her choice and in consequence of order dated 4-6-2002 (Annex. 4), the Collector passed another order dated 10-6-2002 (Annex. 5) whereby respondent No. 7 was selected as Para-Teacher against the post of village Bhirani and in consequences of these two orders, the respondent No. 6 passed an order dated 12-6-2002 (Annex. 4), the Collector passed another order dated 10-6-2002 (Annex. 5) whereby respondent No. 7 was selected as Para-Teacher against the post of village Bhirani and in consequences of these two orders, the respondent No. 6 passed an order dated 12-6-2002 (Annex. 6) whereby the petitioner was relieved from training with effect from 12-6-2002. 10. There is also no dispute in this case that the petitioner filed writ petition on 20-6-2002 and on 21-6-2002 this Court passed a stay order by which operation of order dated 12-6-2002 was stayed, meaning thereby that the petitioner was allowed to complete the training of Para-Teacher against the post of village Bhirani from 1-6-2002 to 30-6-2002. 11. There is also no dispute on point that a certificate (Annex. 11) evidencing the fact that the petitioner completed the training of para-teacher was issued in favour of the petitioner. 12. It is further stated that on 7-7-2002, the petitioner moved an application before Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bhirani (Annex. 12) stating that since she had undergone training, therefore, appointment letter be issued to her on the post of Para-Teacher against the vacancy of village Bhirani. On that Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bhirani recommended her case and there is an endorsement on the application (Annex. 12) dated 7-7-2002 made by the Principal, Government Upper Primary School, Bhirani that the petitioner had joined the duties as para- teacher on 3-7-2002 against the post of village Bhirani. 13. In my considered opinion looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner could not be denied posting as Para-Teacher against the vacancy of village Bhirani as she had undergone training for that post and not only that from the endorsement on the application dated 7-7-2002 (Annex. 12) it is further clear that she was given appointment and she also joined the duties. When this being the position, the case of respondent No. 7 for appointment on the post of Para-Teacher against the vacancy of village Bhirani cannot be considered. No doubt, respondent No. 7 stood above the petitioner in the merit list, but facts just mentioned above clearly reveal that her prayer for selection as Para-Teacher against the vacancy of village Bhirani was not accepted and on the contrary, the case of the petitioner was accepted for that post and consequently, she was sent for training. In these circumstances the impugned order dated 4-6-2002 (Annex. In these circumstances the impugned order dated 4-6-2002 (Annex. 4) passed by the Collector, Hanumangarh would not be binding on the petitioner as she was not a party before the Collector and therefore, if in consequence of order dated 4-6-2002 (Annex. 4), two orders dated 10-6-2002 (Annex. 5) and 12-6-2002 (Annex. 6) were passed, they will also not be binding on the petitioner. Had the petitioner would not have gone for the training of Para-Teacher against the post of village Bhirani the position would have been different. Now since after due selection, she was sent for training of Para-Teacher against the vacancy of village Bhirani and she had completed the training successfully, and not only that she has been given appointment as mentioned in the application dated 7-7-2002 (Annex. 12) and she has joined her duties, therefore, now her status should not be disturbed. 14. After the judgment was reserved on 26-8-2002, a letter dated 28-8-2002 has been presented by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 in which it was mentioned that the petitioner was not given appointment. This letter dated 28-8-2002 would not be taken into consideration because of simple reason that it was issued after the judgment had been reserved on 26-8-2002 and no opportunity to rebut it had been afforded to the petitioner or her counsel. Therefore, no cognizance can be taken of so-called letter dated 28-8-2002 and apart from this, the facts just discussed above clearly make out a case in favour of the petitioner for appointment of the petitioner as para-teacher against the vacancy of Village Bhirani. 15. For the reasons mentioned above, the orders dated 4-6-2002, 10-6-2002 and 12-6-2002 (Annexures 4, 5 and 6 respectively) are liable to be quashed and the writ petition is liable to be allowed.Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 4-6-2002 (Annex. 4), 10-6-2002 (Annex. 5) passed by the Collector, Hanumangarh (respondent No. 3) and order dated 12-6-2002 (Annex. 6) passed by the Block Reference Central Incharge, D.P.E.P. Bhadra (respondent No. 6) are quashed and set aside. It is further ordered that the petitioner would be treated as para-teacher against the vacancy of village Bhirani.Cost made easy.Petition allowed. *******