JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.12.2001 by which services of petitioner were dispensed with and directing him to hand over the charge to one Miss Kamla D/o Jetha Ram, copy of which is placed on record as Annex. P/10 and also challenged the order dated 3.12.2003 passed by Distt. Collector, Pali in revision petition filed by petitioner against the order dated 24.12.2001. Copy of order passed by Distt. Collector, Pali dated 3.12.2002 is on record as Annex. P/14. 3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the order dated 24.12.2002 is absolutely illegal as before passing the order, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and the Block Primary Education Officer had no jurisdiction to pass the order. The petitioner challenged the above order by filing the revision petition under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act but the learned Distt. Collector committed serious illegality in dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner by impugned order dated 3.12.2002. 4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was selected for the post by including his name in the panel which was prepared and recorded in the minutes of Gram Sabha dated 30.6.99. Since two persons i.e. Ugam Raj and Madan Das were given appointment, therefore, petitioner's name was kept in panel of selected candidates. The Gram Sabha in its resolution dated 6.1.2002 approved the name of petitioner because said Ugam Raj stopped coming to the school and submitted resignation. The petitioner though joined the post but formal order of appointment was issued only on 28.12.2002. It is also stated that for certain period petitioner was not paid salary. 5. I perused the impugned order dated 3.12.2002 wherein learned Distt. Collector, Pali carefully considered all the facts and circumstances of this case and after giving full opportunity of hearing to the Block Primary Education Officer, Gram Sabha and Chief Executive Officer of Zila Parishad found that said resolution dated 30.11.99 was tampered with and number of resolutions were changed and this was done to give benefit to the petitioner. It is also recorded that petitioner's name was at S. No. 5 and if his name was in panel, then there was no further necessity of considering the name of petitioner. Learned Distt. It is also recorded that petitioner's name was at S. No. 5 and if his name was in panel, then there was no further necessity of considering the name of petitioner. Learned Distt. Collector, Pali found that everything was done to give undue benefit to the petitioner. It is relevant to mention here that petitioner did not choose to submit the copy of resolution dated 30.11.99 before this court for which there is a finding recorded by learned Distt. Collector, Pali that this document was tampered with. The Distt. Collector, Pali also directed to initiate the proceedings against the persons who tampered with the documents. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner may be permitted to place on record copy of resolution dated 30.11.1999. The request is liable to be rejected because of the fact that petitioner in his writ petition has not even disputed the facts which have been recorded by Distt. Collector, Pali in its order stating that petitioner's name was at particular point of time at S.No. 5 and also not disputed the fact that there is change by tampering in the number of resolution. 6. Assuming for the sake of argument, there may be some irregularities in the order dated 24.12.01, still it is not necessary for this court to interfere looking to the conduct of the petitioner particularly when entire case of petitioner was considered by Distt. Collector, Pali in the impugned order. In view of above facts, I do not find any justification for interference in the order passed by learned Distt. Collector, Pali dated 3.12.2002. Therefore, writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******