Judgment Rajesh Balia, J.-This application has been moved on behalf of some of the respondents in the circumstances that respondent State authorities by misinterpreting the interim order passed by this Court as a total restraint against offering appointments to anyone, have denied consideration of applicants case for appointment altogether. 2. In this petition, challenge is made to condition in Annexure-4 dated 30.04.2001 which restricts appointment under any Panchayat Samiti for the post of Shiksha Sahyogi/ para teachers to the member of same community for which the office of Sarpanch is reserved. By the order dated 03.07.2002 following interim order was made:- "In the meanwhile, clause related to reservation in Annexure-4 dated 30.04.2001 reserving the appointment to the post of para-teachers in the same class for which elected post of Sarpanch is reserved shall remain stayed until further orders." 3. By order dated 28.01.2003 the said interim order was confirmed to last decision of the writ petition. 4. It appears that a learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B.C.W. No. 5405/2003, Gurumukh Singh & Ors. vs. State decided on 15.09.2003, at Jaipur directed the petitioners to approach Collector of District concerned, and the Collector was directed to decide the same by giving an opportunity to concerned candidates. 5. It transpires that on such representation, the Collector Alwar vide his order dated 03.01.2006, opined that though ban on appointment for para teachers was removed by the State Government but because of the order of this Court dated 03.07.2002 passed in this writ petition there is a stay on the appointment to be given to para teachers. Hence, this application. 6. This appears to be wholly misreading of the order of this Court dated 03.07.2002. It only restrained the operation of reservation clause and confining appointment to the class from which Sarpanch was required to be elected and does not otherwise restricts giving of appointment to any class of persons, if otherwise his case is liable to be considered. It was clarified by us in order dated 15.02.2006:- "The order is clear in terms that it stays operation of reservation clause of Annexure-4 dated 30.04.2001 but does not restrict giving appointment to any person without reference to the reservation clause." 7. The position was made further clear by detailed order in Civil Writ Petition 6531/03 decided on 10.04.2006. 8. It was clarified by us in order dated 15.02.2006:- "The order is clear in terms that it stays operation of reservation clause of Annexure-4 dated 30.04.2001 but does not restrict giving appointment to any person without reference to the reservation clause." 7. The position was made further clear by detailed order in Civil Writ Petition 6531/03 decided on 10.04.2006. 8. Moreover, there was never prohibition by interim order against giving appointment to a person in a Panchayat Samiti where seat of Sarpanch was not reserved for any class. 9. It is, therefore, clarified that no restriction existed in giving appointment made by the regular selection after removal of ban by the State Government, if the persons are duly selected and vacancies are available, appointment must ordinarily follow. 10. Consequently respondents are directed to act on the aforesaid premises while considering the case of candidates in pursuance of direction contained in the writ petition referred to above, application of the applicant be considered on the aforesaid premises.