JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 16.05.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in a writ petition (3188/2008), whereby he has allowed the same. 2. The respondent-petitioner, after passing his Senior Secondary Examination in the year 2003, had also passed 3 years GNM Examination held by the Rajasthan Nursing Council, Jaipur, in the year 2006. Thereafter, certificate of registration was issued to him, after being registered as nurse and mid-wife by the Rajasthan Nursing Council, Jaipur. in the year 2006. 3. The petitioner is a bonafide resident of District Barmer and belongs to Other Backward Caste category. The appellant State issued an advertisement on 04.05.2007 inviting applications for the post of GNM. The total number of posts advertised were 2500 and applications were invited from 24 districts.The petitioner though, being a bonafide resident of district Barmer, applied for a post in district Jalore, since no posts were advertised by the appellants for Barmer district. The petitioner could not be selected for the said post in Jalore district since preference/priority was given to the candidates who were bonafide residents of that district, as was given in Clause 6 and 10 of the general directions notified in the aforesaid advertisement. 4. Thereafter, another advertisement was issued by the appellant State for recruitment to the post of GNM, on D8.08.2007 and applications were invited for the same. The total number of posts advertised were 6172 for 24 districts of State of Rajasthan.Later on, a corrigendum was issued on 25.08.2007 to the advertisement issued on 08.08.2007, whereby it was notified that the merit list will be prepared at State level. Subsequently, another corrigendum dated 21.01.2008 was issued by the appellant State notifying that a separate merit list shall be prepared for each districts and no preference/priority will be given on the basis of bonafide residents of the respective district. 5. The respondent-petitioner, being aggrieved of method of preparing the merit list districtwise instead of State level, preferred a writ petition before the High Court (1122/08). The said writ petition was heard and decided, alongwith other similar petitions, vide order dated 20.02.2008. The learned Single Judge of this Court while allowing the writ petitions directed the appellant State : "to prepare merit list on State level by adopting one and same criteria for preparation of the merit. The said writ petition was heard and decided, alongwith other similar petitions, vide order dated 20.02.2008. The learned Single Judge of this Court while allowing the writ petitions directed the appellant State : "to prepare merit list on State level by adopting one and same criteria for preparation of the merit. The appointments are directed to be given thereupon strictly in order of merit irrespective of the place from a candidate is coming and while considering the merit of the candidates, all the applications already submitted, pursuant to the first and second advertisement would be taken into consideration. The corrigendum dated 21.01.2008 is set aside accordingly, while maintaining the corrigendum dated 25.08.2007." 6. The appellant State, for the reasons best known to it, did not continue the process of selection in pursuance of the advertisement dated 08.08.2007 and the selection in furtherance of it could not be materialised. Likewise, the directions given by the High Court, while deciding the aforesaid writ petitions, could not be given effect. 7. Thereafter, the appellant State again issued an advertisement on 23.04.2008 for recruitment on the post of GNM and the same was published in the newspaper on 25.04.2008. By the said advertisement, applications were invited for the post of GNM. Unlike the earlier advertisements, the respondent issued separate advertisement for each district inviting applications blockwise. As regards, the home district of the petitioner, i.e. Barmer, the total number of posts advertised were 144. 8. Being aggrieved of the advertisement dated 23.04.2008 for each district and inviting applications blockwise, the petitioner again approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition (3188/08). The petitioner had challenged the criteria of preparing the merit list on block level, as given in the aforesaid advertisement, on various grounds before the learned Single Judge. Furthermore. the petitioner pleaded that the respondents, in order to circumvent/surpass the directions of the Court issued on 20.02.2008 to prepare the merit list on State level, had intentionally not proceeded with the earlier selection process which was started in pursuance of the advertisement dated 08.08.2007 and are now deliberately inviting applications for the said post from different districts instead of general advertisement and blockwise vacancies have been advertised. 9. 9. The learned Single Judge considered the facts and circumstances of the case and also looked into the earlier judgment, in the writ petition filed by the petitioner rendered by a Bench of this Court on 20.02.2008. He was of the view that after the said judgment, the respondents were under obligation to prepare the merit list in accordance with the directions issued therein. Furthermore, it was held that the conditions in the advertisement dated 23.04.2008 were in contravention of the direction issued by this Court. The respondents were, accordingly, directed to prepare the merit list as per the earlier judgment passed by this Court. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with the said directions. 10. The State Government has filed this appeal assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 16.05.2008. The two fold submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General, assailing the order of the learned Single Judge, are that firstly, the learned Single Judge has decided the writ petition filed by the respondent-petitioner without issuing notice to the respondents. Secondly, that the advertisement issued in the present case for the recruitment on the post of GNM in the Medical Department of Government of Rajasthan was on contract basis and based on local criteria of different dialects and culture. He has also submitted that this recruitment by inviting applications, was under a National Rural Health Mission, for one year and with the aid of the World Bank. Therefore, according to the counsel for the State, the criteria laid down for preparation of the merit list on block level was just and proper. 11. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General, we are afraid that we are not able to accept any of the contentions raised by him. As mentioned above, for the purpose of same recruitment, advertisements were issued on 04.05.2007 but the petitioner was not considered on merits because he is not a resident of district Jalore for which the advertisement was made. Later on, another advertisement was issued by the respondent on 08.08.2007 inviting applications for the post of GNM for filling vacancies totaling to 6172. Later, a corrigendum was issued inviting that a separate merit list prepared in each districts. Later on, another advertisement was issued by the respondent on 08.08.2007 inviting applications for the post of GNM for filling vacancies totaling to 6172. Later, a corrigendum was issued inviting that a separate merit list prepared in each districts. The said advertisement was challenged by the petitioner and specific directions were given by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 20.02.2008 while deciding the writ petition of Dheema Ram Choudhary (1120/08) along with it the writ petition of the present petitioner was also decided (1122/08). Even then, instead of complying with the directions issued by the High Court and to abide by the observations made therein, the appellant State adopted a novel method by not pursuing the selection process in respect of the advertisement dated 08.08.2007. Consequently, the directions of the High Court were not given effect to. Instead, the appellant State issued another advertisement on 28.04.2008, wherein separate advertisements were issued for each districts and inviting applications blockwise. 12. The criteria impugned adopted by the appellant State for preparing the merit list at district level is certainly arbitrary and violative of the provision of the Constitution of India. In a case of similar nature where the controversy, as involved in the present case, was raised before the Apex Court, it was laid down hat the action of the State Government in restoring the preparation of merit list from State level to district level was arbitrary and violative of Article 15(1) and 16(2) of the Constitution. It was in the case of Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., (2005) 5 SCC 172 , wherein while laying down the principle, as aforesaid, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : "Although a feeble attempt was made by the counsel on behalf of the State respondents that different districts have different dialects and, therefore, it would be necessary to restrict the selection to candidates conversant and fluent in those regional dialects, we are not satisfied that adequate material was presented to the High Court on the basis of which this distinction could have been justified. In the first place, there was no material to indicate that dialects vary from district to district. Consequently, there was no material to indicate that a candidate from one district was not likely to be familiar with the dialect of another district for which he applied for training. In the first place, there was no material to indicate that dialects vary from district to district. Consequently, there was no material to indicate that a candidate from one district was not likely to be familiar with the dialect of another district for which he applied for training. There was also no material placed on record to indicate that training was to be in local dialect for the local school only. Finally, if the emphasis is really on the regional dialect, nothing prevented the State Government from making the knowledge of a specified regional dialect as preferential criterion for recruitment. For these reasons, we agree with the view taken by the Division Bench on this issue and hold that restriction of the selection and preparation of merit list at the district level was arbitrary and violative of Articles 15(1) and 16(2) of the Constitution." 13. Coming to the next contention raised by the learned counsel for the State, in respect of the judgment impugned passed learned Single Judge at the first hearing, we are of the view that in the fact situation mentioned above and the direction having been given by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, after hearing both the parties in the case of Dheema Ram Choudhary (1120/08), in its decision dated 20.02.2008, the learned Single Judge had observed that the State Government was under obligation to prepare the merit list in accordance with the said directions. Secondly, the criteria laid down in the advertisement dated 23.04.2008 which was sought to be challenged in the present writ petition of the petitioner, was in contravention of the said directions given by the High Court while deciding a bunch of writ petitions earlier. Therefore, the decision given by the learned Single Judge, in the instant case, cannot be said to be illegal or suffering from any error. 14. As regards, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the State that the advertisement issued for the recruitment of the post of GNM, in the present case, was on contract basis and based on local criteria. It would suffice to say that similar contention had been deait with by the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (supra) but it had been turned down. Therefore, this contention of the counsel for the State cannot be sustained. It would suffice to say that similar contention had been deait with by the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (supra) but it had been turned down. Therefore, this contention of the counsel for the State cannot be sustained. In respect of the submissions made by the counsel for the State that the present recruitment was under National Rural Health Mission for one year and was with the aid of the World Bank and, therefore, the advertisements were issued for serving the said purpose. It would be noted that the appellant State itself had been issued advertisement one after the other, starting form 04.05.2007. More so corrigendum after corrigendum were also being issued which certainly resulted in delay in the selection of the candidates. Therefore, the fault lies with the Government in consuming long time in the selection so as to serve the purpose for which it was proposed to be made. In any case, the selection, whatever may be the purpose, has to be made in accordance to law and the States Government cannot deviate from the settled principles in respect of such selection. In case, it is not so done then the same is violative of the provision of the Constitution and interference by the Courts is warranted. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal has no force, as being devoid of merit. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******