JUDGMENT 1. :- Since on similar set of facts, common questions of law are involved, on request of counsel for the parties all the writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. There appears to be a total chaos and confusion created by the authorities in giving appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III, the lowest post in the cadre, in various Panchayat Samities under Zila Parishad, Sikar. The appointments have been given in a haphazard manner without any clear directions/instructions from the higher authorities, unmindful of complications affecting not only the administration but a large number of candidates as well. And now onerous job has been left to the Court to bring out a solution. 3. An advertisement was issued for the post of Teacher Grade III by Zila Parishad, Sikar vide notice dated 13.01.1998. The last date of receipt of the application forms was 27.06.1998. After preparing merit-list appointments were also accordingly given in the month of November, 1999 as also in December, 1999 in various Panchayat Samities. 4. The controversy arose when some persons having degree of B.Ed. from institutions of Bihar were not given appointment on the ground that their degrees having not been verified from the concerned institutions. On filing writ petitions before this Court by such candidates, either posts were ordered to be kept vacant or directions were issued to give them appointment if any person lower in merit has been so appointed subject to the verification of their degrees subsequently. 5. In another batch of persons the controversy arose in regard to the qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) after having done bridge course been treated as equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic). Such candidates also claimed appointment as per their merit after having done their bridge course as per judgment of this Court delivered after issuing the advertisement in question. The respondent department also issued necessary directions to consider the candidates having Senior Secondary (Vocational) for appointment as per their merit if they have done bridge course as well. Under the contingencies as referred above, the respondents sought termination of services of 31 candidates who had already been given appointment, however, would be lowered down in merit in case persons having B.Ed. degree from Bihar and persons having Senior Secondary (Vocational) after doing their bridge course are considered for appointment. 6. Under the contingencies as referred above, the respondents sought termination of services of 31 candidates who had already been given appointment, however, would be lowered down in merit in case persons having B.Ed. degree from Bihar and persons having Senior Secondary (Vocational) after doing their bridge course are considered for appointment. 6. In Writ Petition No.2500/2001, Ram Mohan Yadav and others Vs. The State of Rajasthan and others , the petitioners challenged the appointment of 24 respondents who were appointed vide orders dated 07.04.2000 and 10.04.2000 on the post of Teacher Grade III in pursuance to advertisement issued on 13.01.1998 on the basis of their qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) mainly on the ground that their marks of bridge course should only have been considered for adjudging their merit as also on the ground that all the respondents sought to be appointed had done their bridge course much after the last date of receipt of applications in pursuance to the advertisement in question. In other 31 writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the respective show cause notices issued to them as to why their services may not be terminated since persons higher in merit have to be given appointment in view of the contingencies referred above. 7. The position as exists today is that the respondents in writ petition No.2500/2001 have already been given appointment in April, 2000 itself and the petitioners in other writ petitions who were initially appointed in November, 1999 and notice for termination has been issued in February, 2001 are also working as such in view of interim order passed by this Court. More than three years have lapsed. In spite of opportunities been given exact position of the vacancies as on today has not been submitted by the respondents so far. The controversy now is in regard to only 31 candidates who are working for last about 4 years. The appointments in April, 2000 could not have been given without existence of vacancies. Thus the reasons for issuing show cause notice to 31 petitioners in February, 2001 either have no relevance or would not survive. After having considered all the facts and circumstances and also in the interest of justice and equity, it will be proper for the respondents now to continue all the candidates who have already been appointed and working as on today until and unless verification of certificates and degrees are otherwise. After having considered all the facts and circumstances and also in the interest of justice and equity, it will be proper for the respondents now to continue all the candidates who have already been appointed and working as on today until and unless verification of certificates and degrees are otherwise. The respondents may adjust or create/sanction additional posts to accommodate such 31 petitioners if the exigency so arise. 8. To avoid such complications in future, it is expected from the authorities to first get proper instructions/guidelines and also legal opinion before issuing letters of appointment to the selected candidates. It is also expected from the concerned authorities to place and plead proper record and material before the Courts so as to avoid unnecessary complications which might arose because of different directions issued in difference cases. In view of the directions issued above, the legal questions as raised in writ petition No.2500/2001 are not required to be decided.All the writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly.Petitions disposed of. *******