JUDGMENT 1. . - Aggrieved of order dated 5th July, 2002, declining his selection to the post of Teacher Gr.III and consequential allotment made, as would be reflected from the order dated 1st November, 1999; the petitioner has approached this Court praying for the following relief(s): i) impugned order dated 5.7.2002(Annexure- 3) by which the services of petitioner has been terminated may be quashed and set aside; ii) respondents be directed to reinstate the service of petitioner on the post of Gr.III teacher with all back wages and consequential benefits and service of petitioner may be treated in continuation; iii) any other appropriate order or direction which deems your lordships fit and proper in favour of petitioner may also be passed; and iv) Costs of writ petition be also awarded to the petitioner." 2. Briefly, the skeletal material facts essential for appreciation of the controversy needs to be first noticed. In response to advertisement No.1/98, the petitioner applied for consideration of his candidature for appointment to the Teacher Gr.III. On a scrutiny and assessment, he was selected and allotted merit No.114/953. The petitioner was called upon to submit the original documents and consequent to scrutiny of the documents; the petitioner was adjudged fit and was accorded appointment vide order dated 1st November, 1999, allotting him to Dataramgarh Panchayat Samiti. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that candidates, with lower merit in marks than the petitioner (85.80%), have been accorded appointment, as would be reflected from the order dated 1st November, 1999 as well as from another order of even date, which contains names of Lokesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Sita Ram Sharma with 85.72%, Murlidhar S/o Shri Tejaram with 85.68% and Harphool Singh S/o Shri Bhinvaram with 85.68%. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anoop Dhand, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, submits that a batch of writ applications was disposed off by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 16th May, 2001; lead case being SBCWP No.1295/2000 (Banna Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) . The petitioner's writ application, in the batch of writ applications aforesaid, finds place at serial No.11, as would be evident from the order being SBCWP No.1424/2000 (Shish Ram v. State of Raj. & Ors.) . The petitioner's writ application, in the batch of writ applications aforesaid, finds place at serial No.11, as would be evident from the order being SBCWP No.1424/2000 (Shish Ram v. State of Raj. & Ors.) . According to the learned counsel, vide order dated 16th May, 2001, aforementioned, the respondents were directed to accord appointment to the petitioner(s) in accordance with their merit expeditiously. 4. It was further observed that those candidates shall not be given appointment whose Degree of B.Ed. is not recognised by the State of Rajasthan by various orders issued by the State Government or its authorities. Despite the direction made by the Court, vide order dated 16th May, 2001, the State-respondents, instead of according appointment to the petitioner, passed the impugned order dated 5th July, 2002; cancelling the selection of the petitioner made vide order dated 1st November, 1999. 5. Learned counsel further contended that in view of an order made by this Court on 6th May, 2008, the petitioner was directed to file an additional affidavit to the effect that B.Ed. Degree acquired by him from the concerned University, has not been withdrawn, and in compliance thereof, the petitioner filed an additional affidavit along with an application on 22nd May, 2008, wherein he specifically stated that he acquired the B.Ed. degree in the month of June, 1997 from Millat Teachers' Training College, Madhubani (Bihar), recognised by NCTE. The mark-sheet and certificate issued by Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar, Darbhanga, were also enclosed with the additional affidavit, with a copy in advance to the counsel for the State-respondents on 21st May, 2008. The genuineness of the document has not been denied by the State-respondents, till date. 6. Referring to the additional affidavit, learned counsel further reiterated that the mark-sheet issued by Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar, Darbhanga and the B.Ed. Degree by Millat Teachers' Training College are the genuine documents and the educational qualifications have been acquired by the petitioner from the concerned University/College. Learned counsel, further contended that the action of the State-respondents suffers with the vice of discrimination for several persons who have acquired the educational qualifications from the same institutions, have been accorded appointment. 7. Degree by Millat Teachers' Training College are the genuine documents and the educational qualifications have been acquired by the petitioner from the concerned University/College. Learned counsel, further contended that the action of the State-respondents suffers with the vice of discrimination for several persons who have acquired the educational qualifications from the same institutions, have been accorded appointment. 7. Further, the impugned order dated 5th July, 2002, has been passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sikar, without issuing any notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner whereas less meritorious candidates namely Lokesh Kumar Sharma (85.72%), Murlidhar (85.68%) and Harphool Singh (85.68%), have been accorded appointment to the post of Teacher Gr.III, vide order dated 1st November, 1999, whereas the petitioner with higher percentage of 85.80%, has been denied appointment. That apart, if the State-respondents doubted the genuineness of the B.Ed. Degree acquired by the petitioner from Millat Teachers' Training College and/or from Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar, Darbhanga; in fact could have been verified but without resorting to such a course of action, the impugned order dated 5th July, 2002, has been passed contrary to law. 8. In response to the notice of the writ application, the State-respondents have filed their counter affidavit, pleading that the petitioner did not get the verification done of the Degree of B.Ed. acquired by him from the State of Bihar, on the basis of which right to appointment is being claimed. Under Paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, there is a specific statement to the effect that the Degree of B.Ed. acquired by the petitioner is one from "Maithili University", Darbhanga (Bihar), which is doubtful and appears to be a fake degree, and therefore, its verification was necessary since the petitioner did not get the verification done, even after sufficient opportunity accorded to him, therefore, the action of the respondents, in declining appointment to the petitioner, cannot be faulted. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents, reiterating the stand in the counter affidavit, vehemently argued that there were several instances of employment sought on the basis of the fake/forged degrees obtained from the State of Bihar, and therefore, the matter was investigated and the educational qualifications of several Universities from the State of Bihar, were not treated as equivalent and valid for the purpose of appointment in the State of Rajasthan. 10. 10. On being queried by the Court, about a specific statement made by the petitioner, in the additional affidavit, filed in compliance of the order dated 6 6th May, 2008, stating that the B.Ed. Degree acquired by the petitioner in the year 1997 from Millat Teachers' Training College, Madhubani (Bihar), a recognised Institute by NCTE and a certificate issued by Millat Teachers' Training College as well as the mark-sheet, were genuine documents from the institutions; has not been responded till date. The learned counsel expressed his inability to comment upon for he had no instructions with reference to the contents of affidavit and the documents annexed thereto, which were already furnished with the writ application as well and were again enclosed with the Additional Affidavit. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the materials available on record as well as gave my earnest consideration to the rival contentions raised at Bar. 12. The petitioner has approached this Court for the second time after having first instituted writ application No.1424/2000, which was decided, along with a batch of writ applications, vide order dated 16th May, 2001. 13. At this juncture, it will be gainful to take note of the contents of the order passed in the earlier round of litigation, which reads thus: "On 31.12.1999 the Deputy Secretary to Government (Admn.) Panchayat Raj Department, Jaipur sent a letter (Annexure-5) to the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sikar that except the candidates who did their training and secured the Degree from (1) National Teachers Training College, Ared, Madhubani, (2) S.M. Zarif College of Education, Mabbi, Darbhanga, (3) Faqruddin Ali Ahmed Snikshak Prashikshan Mahavidyalay, Darbhanga and (4) S.Vakil Ahmed, Snikshak Prashikshan Mahavidyalay, Murgiyachak, Lahariyasarai, all other Degree holder candidates, which are subjected to verification, may be given appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III. As an abundant caution, an undertaking be taken from those candidates that if their Degrees are found to be forged in future then their services shall be terminated without giving any reason. In spite of that letter sent verifying their Degrees to be correct and their having secured the marks whereby they stand in merit, they have not been given appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.IIII. In spite of that letter sent verifying their Degrees to be correct and their having secured the marks whereby they stand in merit, they have not been given appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.IIII. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that from the letters dated 20.1.2000 and 31.12.1999 it is clear that although their Degrees have been verified, they are subjected to further scrutiny and investigation and, therefore, the petitioners are not being given appointment and that the select list having been expired, no directions can be issued for given them appointment. It may be seen from the documents submitted that the petitioners' Degrees have been verified and were found to be correct. It is only as a matter of abundant caution that the State wants to secure the right of terminating the services if in future the Degrees are not found to be obtained from the recognised Universities or obtained by fraud. The future eventualities, that the Degrees may or may not be found to be obtained from the recognised Universities or by fraud, cannot be a ground for denying appointment to the candidates who stand in merit; particularly so when the exercise is being done by the State verifying the correctness of petitioners Degrees which have been submitted along-with the application forms. There is also no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the selection list having been exhausted after one year of the selection, no appointment could be given to the petitioners. In fact the petitioners have immediately approached this Court after they have been allocated different schools of different panchayat samities but were not given appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III. It may be seen that the respondents themselves have issued the orders allocating different schools in different panchayat samities on 1.11.1999 which itself is after one year of the select list being published on 17.5.1998. Thus the respondents themselves have not treated the select list to be exhausted and have exercised their power of giving appointment on the basis of select list. Now it is too late in the day to object the appointment of the petitioners on the abs-is that the selection list was exhausted on expiry of the period of one year from its publication i.e. 17.5.1998. Now it is too late in the day to object the appointment of the petitioners on the abs-is that the selection list was exhausted on expiry of the period of one year from its publication i.e. 17.5.1998. Since the petitioners shall be given appointment after 21.10.1999, the petitioners merit shall be considered in accordance with the directions given in paragraph No.8 of the order dated 26th of February, 2001 passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.6064/99 (Naval Kishore Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Others) and 22 other Writ Petitions, which has been confirmed by the Division Bench vide its order dated 13th April, 2001 passed in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.129/2001 & 16 Other Appeals. It is made clear that as per directions given in the order dated 26.2.2001 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petittion No.6064/99 & 22 other Writ Petitions, the petitioners shall not be awarded additional ten and five bonus marks on the basis of they being original residents of particular District or residents of rural area of that District for which the advertisement was issued. For the aforesaid reasons, it is directed that the exercise for giving appointment to the petitioners in accordance with their merit shall be completed by the respondents expeditiously. It goes without saying that appointments to those candidates shall not be given whose Degree of B.Ed. is not recognised in the State of Rajasthan by various Orders issued by the State Government or its authorities. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly." 14. From a glance of the order, as extracted herein-above, it is evident that the documents submitted along with the writ application earlier i.e. the degrees and mark-sheet were verified and were found to be correct. This finding attained the finality as the order aforesaid was not subjected to any further challenge. 15. This Court while adjudicating the matters vide order dated 16th May, 2001, observed that future eventualities to the effect that the Degrees may or may not be found to be obtained from the recognised Universities or by fraud, cannot be a ground for denying appointment to the candidates who stand in merit; particularly so when the exercise was already done by the State for the purpose of verifying the correctness of the candidates qualifications including the petitioner. 16. 16. The defence set up by the State-respondents in the earlier writ proceedings that the select list lapsed after one year was repelled for the petitioners had immediately approached this Court after they were allotted different schools of different Panchayat Samities but were not accorded appointment to the post of Teacher Gr.III. 17. In view of the specific finding recorded by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, while adjudicating upon the correctness of the educational qualifications of the petitioner, it is open for the State-respondents to raise the same argument again for the purpose of verification of the Degree of the petitioner. That apart, there is no response to the specific statement made by the petitioner in the additional affidavit that candidates, who are less meritorious, have been accorded appointment. So also, the fact that the candidates, who acquired similar qualifications from the same institutions, have also been accorded appointment. 18. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the State-respondents wrongly construed Millat Teachers' Training College for 'Maithili' institute appears to be of some substance. 19. For the reasons and discussions herein-above, the writ application succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 5th July, 2002, is hereby quashed and set aside. 20. The respondents are directed to accord appointment to the petitioner in pursuance to his selection made. It is made clear that all consequential benefits would be admissible on notional basis. 21. The State-respondents are directed to ensure compliance of this order within a period of two months' from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. 22. No costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******