Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—All these writ petition shave been filed assailing the order of the Government dated 17.3.2011 pursuant to which the appointment orders of the petitioners dated 14.7.2010 were cancelled and their services were discontinued. The impugned order dated 17.3.2011 has been passed in compliance of the judgment of coordinate bench of this Court in Hari Singh and Others vs. R.P.S.C. and Ors. 2010(4) WLC (Raj.) 771. The single Bench by the aforesaid judgment decided as many as 12 writ petitions. The dispute was with regard to correctness of of the authors namely (1) Colonel Taud, (2) Badayuni, (3) Abdul Fazal and (4) Gopinath Sharma, has referred to the war of Haldi Ghati as "Khamnor ka Yudh". The coordinate bench of this Court was persuaded to allow the writ petitions on consideration of the fact that while three different authors have in their books mentioned that it was Abdul Fazal who has called the war of Haldi Ghati as Khamnor Ka Yudh and one of those books has even been approved by the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer, there is only one author who has mentioned that it was Badayuni who has called the war of Haldi Ghati battle as Khamnor Ka Yudh. On the basis of this conclusion. The coordinate Single Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition with the following directions : "Consequently, writ petitions are hereby allowed. Respondents are directed to treat option (3) (Abdul Fazal) to Q.20 of Series A and its corresponding Questions of other series as correct answer thereto and accordingly such of petitioners and applicants who have not approached this Court but attempted option (3) (Abdul Fazal) to Q.20 of Series A and its corresponding Questions of other series as their answer thereto, their result be revised and such of applicants including petitioners whose names ultimately find place in select list which is supposed to be revised as a consequence of directions (supra), may be considered for appointment for the post of Teacher Gr.III pursuant to advertisement dt. 20.6.2008. Compliance be made within two months. No costs." 2. Learned counsels appearing for the petitioners have argued that impugned order which has effected the removal of petitioners from service has been passed by the respondents without any show cause notice to the petitioners and without providing them opportunity of hearing. 20.6.2008. Compliance be made within two months. No costs." 2. Learned counsels appearing for the petitioners have argued that impugned order which has effected the removal of petitioners from service has been passed by the respondents without any show cause notice to the petitioners and without providing them opportunity of hearing. It is argued that petitioners were not party to any of the aforesaid 12 writ petitions and therefore judgment of learned Single Judge in Hari Singh, supra cannot bind them. It is argued that RPSC has sent select list to the Government much before the judgment was delivered by this Court and on that basis, the appointment orders were issued by the Government on 14.7.2010 requiring the petitioners to join latest by 31.7.2010. There is no manner in which the petitioners could come to know about pendency of the writ petition and, therefore, judgment of this Court, cannot be made basis to cancel the appointment orders of the petitioners. 3. Shri S.P. Sharma, learned Senior Counel for petitioners cited the judgment of Supreme Court in Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Mukesh Thakur and Anr. (2010) 6 SCC 759 and argued that Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment held that High Court cannot take upon itself task of examiner or Selection Board and examine the discrepancies and inconsistencies in question papers and evaluation thereof. Learned Senior Counsel also cited the Constitutional Bench judgment of Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak & Anr. (1988) 2 SCC 602 and argued that even the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case held that Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to suo motu direct withdrawal of case from the Court of Special Judge and order for transfer thereof to High Court for speedier trial in breach of principles of natural justice and without affording opportunity of hearing to the accused and such direction of one bench can be set aside by another bench in subsequent appeal. 4. Learned Senior Counsel also relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Prabodh Verma vs. State of U.P. - (1984) 4 SCC 251 and argued that it was held therein that High Court ought not to decide a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the person who would be vitally affected by its judgment without being before it as respondents. To the same effect, reliance has been placed on recent judgment of Supreme Court in Girjesh Shrivastava and Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (2010) 10 SCC 707 . 5. Shri S.P.S Sharma, learned Senior Counel argued that one the petitioners namely Ashwini Sharma has filed D.B. Special Appeal (W) No. 011929/2010 with an application seeking leave to appeal. The division bench of this Court dismissed the appeal as premature holding that appellant was not in a position to answer the specific query of the Court whether his result of marks were increased or remained unchanged. Subsequently, 17 of the present writ petitioners have filed appeal before the division bench with an application seeking leave to file such appeal and condonation of delay in which notices for condonation of delay have been issued by this Court as recently as on 20.4.2011. 6. Shri S.P. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further argued that although in the order of appointment of the petitioners, a condition was inserted as condition No.7 to the effect that their appointment would be subject to final outcome of various writ petitions pending before this Court, but particulars or details about those writ petitions were not mentioned, therefore, the petitioners could not immediately come to know about such pending petitions, regarding which if they had known, they would have certainly applied for their impleadment in those petitions to appraise the Court of the fact that select list has already been sent to the Government and the appointments have been made. Those facts ought to have been brought to notice of the Court by the State Government and the RPSC who are parties before this Court. If those authorities failed in their duty to do so, petitioners cannot be made to suffer on that account. Learned Senior Counsel argued that judgment of this Court in absence of petitioners has virtually affected the fate of 171 candidates who have been now excluded from the select list and another set of fresh 171 candidates have been brought in. The situation like this, which is the creation of the State Government itself has arisen as a result lf inaction on their part, therefore, the Government itself, should be required to save their appointments because a large number of vacancies are available with the Government. The situation like this, which is the creation of the State Government itself has arisen as a result lf inaction on their part, therefore, the Government itself, should be required to save their appointments because a large number of vacancies are available with the Government. Learned counsel in this connection cited judgment of Supreme Court in Manish Ujwal & Ors. vs. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University & Ors. (2005) 13 SCC 744 and argued that in that case also, six answer keys provided by the University in common entrance test for admission to MBBS/BDS course were found to be palpably and demonstrably wrong. By the time the judgment was delivered, the first counseling was already over and thus there was possibility that fresh evaluation by feeding correct key answers would adversely effect those who had already secured admission on the basis of results declared and ranking originally given. It was held that student community cannot be made to suffer on account of errors committed by the University and therefore direction to that effect was passed. Learned counsel therefore argued that State Government should be directed to retain all the 171 candidates who were appointed after their names were sent to the government by RPSC in the select list, police verification was made and they were gave joining and thereafter served for almost eight months. It is therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed. 7. Shri S.S. Sharma, learned counsel for petitioners has argued that the ultimate direction of the learned Single Judge was not to disturb the appointments already made. All that was directed as that select list should be revised. if the select list was already sent to the Government by RPSC and was acted upon, revision of that select list would not have had the effect of removal of the petitioners and that too without providing them opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel argued that by treating the answer keys of the petitioners as incorrect, which earlier was treated as correct, not only the marks which were awarded to the petitioners by treating their answer as correct, have been reduced, but as a result of treating their answers wrong, RPSC has now done negative marking, thus it had the effect of further pushing down their merit drastically. Learned counsel cited judgment of the division bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Rimjhim Shrimal and Ors.- 2008(2) WLC (Raj.) 116 wherein it was held that appointment of the candidate, who has already been selected and admitted, cannot be disturbed if he/she was not party to the writ petition. 8. Shri Ganesh Meena, learned Government Counsel argued that during the course of arguments this Court was informed of the developments in the selection process, but controversy in the matter was limited to the extent whether answer to question No.20 in Series-A was correct or not. This Court was persuaded to hold the answer key to be incorrect and on that basis, directed revision of the select list. Learned counsel argued that non-impleadment of the petitioners at that stage when the writ petitions were already filed much before the finalisation of the select list would not be attaching any illegality to the judgment because by that time, it was not possible to know as to how many candidates would be affected by the implementation of the judgment of this Court and who would be those candidates. This argument even otherwise is of no strength because a specific condition was inserted in the appointment order of the petitioners as condition No.7 that their appointment would be subject to final outcome of the writ petitions pending before this Court. It was argued that petitioners have not shown as to what effort they made to enquire about the pending writ petitions before this Court. Once the writ petitions were filed earlier, then the appointment of the said petitioners would obviously be subject to final outcome of the writ petitions. 9. Shri Ganesh Meena, learned Government Counsel further argued that the Government decided not to file any appeal against the judgment of single bench. Contempt petition No. 1085/2010 was filed by the writ petitioners against the government for implementation of judgment, which even otherwise the government was under an obligation to implement, in which notices were issued to the various functionaries of the government as to why they should not be held guilty of committing contempt of court. The government had to therefore implement the judgment and therefore no fault can be found with the impugned order. 10. The government had to therefore implement the judgment and therefore no fault can be found with the impugned order. 10. Shri K.N. Kumawat, learned Additional Advocate General for RPSC has argued that respondents decided to implement the judgment and not to file appeal against that judgment, therefore, they have passed the impugned order. It was argued that the fact that select list was prepared and it had been sent to the Government and appointments were already made were very much pleaded in the reply to some of the writ petitions out of 12 writ petitions decided by coordinate bench by common judgment in Hari Singh, supra. It was also canvassed before the Court that judgment might effect hundred of persons, but it was not yet known as to who ultimately would be affected. The Court nevertheless allowed the writ petitions holding answer key to question No.20 in Series-A as incorrect and directed that such of the petitioners and applicants who have not approached this Court, who attempted the option (3) Abdul Fazal, their result should be revised and as a consequence of judgment and if they ultimately find place in merit, they may be considered for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III pursuant to advertisement. Though there was no specific direction for removal of the candidate already appointed, but the very fact that the select list was ordered to be revised in view of the aforesaid direction would obviously had the effect of excluding as many as 171 candidates from the select list whose answer key was held to be incorrect and same number of candidates, who were otherwise out of select list, were brought in because their answer was considered to be incorrect. The respondents therefore cannot be held guilty of hiding any fact from the Court. Learned Additional Advocate General further argued that this fact about non-impleadment of petitioners in those petitions would not be of any significance in view of condition No.7 of the appointment order where it was specifically mentioned that appointment of the petitioners would be subject to final outcome of the various writ petitions pending before this Court. Learned Additional Advocate General further argued that this fact about non-impleadment of petitioners in those petitions would not be of any significance in view of condition No.7 of the appointment order where it was specifically mentioned that appointment of the petitioners would be subject to final outcome of the various writ petitions pending before this Court. It was also argued that this Single Bench cannot examine the correctness of validity of judgment of another single bench and that the remedy of the petitioners if they feel aggrieved, is before the division bench by filing appeal with the leave of the Court and since some of the petitioners have already filed appeals, therefore, these writ petitions be dismissed. 11. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 12. Argument that since the direction of single judge was only to the effect that the candidates who have given option (3) Abdul Fazal in answer to question No.20 in Series-A, their answer should be treated as correct and on that basis the select list be revised and therefore further argument on that basis that there was positive direction only for the candidates who attempted option (3) Abdul Fazal for question No.20 and there was no negative direction for exclusion of candidates who attempted option (2) Badayuni for the said question, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that select list was common and that select list was prepared for a particular number of vacancies notified to the RPSC by the Government. The RPSC has no power to prepare a select list in excess of the number of vacancies notified which even otherwise as per the law enunciated by the Supreme Court in several judgments is beyond its authority (except preparation of reserve list as per rules), but also of the State. This might have affected the candidates who might have eligibility subsequent to the notification of such vacancies. That is a however a peripheral issue. The cardinal question that arises for consideration of the Court is whether the select list could have been revised in isolation only for inclusion of writ petitioners before this Court in Hari Singh, supra. This might have affected the candidates who might have eligibility subsequent to the notification of such vacancies. That is a however a peripheral issue. The cardinal question that arises for consideration of the Court is whether the select list could have been revised in isolation only for inclusion of writ petitioners before this Court in Hari Singh, supra. This argument cannot be accepted because select list had to be revised as a whole on implementation of the direction of this Court in Hari Singh, supra which obviously would have the effect of excluding certain candidates and including the same number of candidates. This argument is therefore rejected. 13. Contention that petitioners were not party to the judgment passed in Hari Singh, supra therefore that judgment cannot bind them and that no show cause notice was given to them by the respondents prior to canceling their appointment and no opportunity of hearing was given to them, this issue need not be examined by this single Judge because that argument may be available to the petitioners while assailing the validity of the judgment of Hari Singh, supra before the division bench. Even if petitioners were not party to the writ petition, they are directly affected by the judgment and therefore they can with he leave of the Court file appeal. Moreover, some of the petitioners i.e. 17 in number, have already filed appeal being D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 4500/2011 in which notice for condonation of delay has been issued as well as of appeal has been issued to the respondent by the division bench on 20.4.2011. It is still open to such of the petitioners who have not filed appeal to file such appeal even now, if they are so advised. For the same reason, the judgment of Supreme Court in Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, supra, on which basis petitioners week to raise argument about correctness of the judgment of coordinate bench in Hari Singh, supra cannot be examined by me while sitting in single bench. 14. There is however one aspect which needs consideration of the State Government that as many as 171 candidates were appointed by order dated 14.7.2010 and they continued to work till 17.3.2011. This has been result of implementation of judgment of this Court. 14. There is however one aspect which needs consideration of the State Government that as many as 171 candidates were appointed by order dated 14.7.2010 and they continued to work till 17.3.2011. This has been result of implementation of judgment of this Court. Although that judgment may be subject matter of appeal and may even now be further subjected to appeal by many other candidates but nevertheless State Government ought to examine, if, as has been given out by learned counsel for the petitioners, it has sufficient number of vacancies, whether it can at its discretion accommodate these 171 candidates below already appointed candidates, as a one time measure so as to settle controversy once and for all. 15. While the writ petitions are dismissed, the State Government is directed to address that issue and pass specific order within a period of thirty days from the date copy of this order is produced before them. The writ petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid direction.