ORDER : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred, in sum and substance, with the following prayers:- “(a) The record of the case may kindly be called for; (b) The order dated 23.05.2017 (Annex.11) may very kindly be quashed and set aside. (c)The petitioner may kindly be directed to be reinstated in service. (d) The petitioner may be allowed to continue on the post of Prabodhak in pursuance of the appointment issued in his favour. (e) Any other writ, order or direction which your Lordship may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances stated above, in favour of the petitioner may kindly be allowed.” 2. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that the petitioners underwent the selection process in accordance with the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rule of 2008’). The names of the petitioners appeared in the select list and they were accordingly appointed on the post of Prabodhak vide order dated 22.07.2010 the petitioners joined their services and were discharging their duties. But thereafter, without giving any opportunity of hearing, the services of the petitioners were terminated on 09.11.2010 However, this Hon'ble Court protected the petitioners vide its earlier order dated 09.04.2014 passed in S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 11953/2010, whereby the writ petition was allowed and the termination order was quashed, while directing the respondents to pass fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing. 3. Meanwhile, it emanated out of the merit list that the cut off marks for the general category candidates were 37. However, it is not disputed that the petitioners did not conceal or misrepresented any material information or fact for securing the appointment. After affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the respondents passed a fresh order dated 26.08.2014, whereby it was decided that though the petitioners did not qualify the cut off marks i.e 37 marks, but the petitioners shall be continued in their appointment, as the State Government had already decided vide its earlier order dated 25.06.2012 that the Prabodhaks, particularly similarly situated persons, as the present petitioners, shall not be removed from their services, until further orders. Thus, the respondents themselves have chosen not to remove the petitioners vide order dated 26.08.2014, which remained in currency. Thus, the respondents themselves have chosen not to remove the petitioners vide order dated 26.08.2014, which remained in currency. On 07.10.2016, Zila Parishad, Jalore recommended further creation of the seats for the petitioners, and thereafter, the State Government itself recommended sanction of posts, in totality, for 80 candidates, including the present petitioners, who were Prabodhaks, so as to continue their appointment, rather protecting such appointments, which earlier also were protected vide the aforementioned order of the State Government dated 25.06.2012 4. This Court has also seen the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dated 18.04.2017 passed in D.B Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 34/2017, in which one Shri Anil Vyas had been permitted to join the services at par with the present petitioners, as he was higher in merit i.e 36.67 marks. The respondents, before the Hon'ble Division Bench, had admitted that Shri Anil Vyas had secured 36.67 marks and also admitted that there was no reason to discriminate Shri Anil Vyas vis-a-vis the present petitioners. It was the respondents themselves, who admitted the position that the present petitioners were continuing on their respective post. The order of the Hon'ble Division Bench has already been implemented and Shri Anil Vyas has been given appointment. 5. The respondents however, meanwhile decided that the services of the present petitioners ought to be terminated in compliance of the aforementioned order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench, whereas no such compliance was mentioned or required in the said order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench. However, the order of termination passed on 05.05.2017 was challenged by the petitioners, and the same was stayed by this Hon'ble Court. But meanwhile, the respondents have passed final order of termination, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petitions. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners were given appointment in the year 2010 strictly in accordance with the Rules of 2008 as they stood on their own merits. Learned counsel for the petitioners further stated that the petitioners had approached this Court on account of earlier illegalities committed by the respondents by terminating the services of the petitioners in the garb of making compliance of the aforementioned order dated 18.04.2017 passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, whereas no such compliance was required in the said order. Learned counsel for the petitioners further stated that the petitioners had approached this Court on account of earlier illegalities committed by the respondents by terminating the services of the petitioners in the garb of making compliance of the aforementioned order dated 18.04.2017 passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, whereas no such compliance was required in the said order. Thus, this Hon'ble Court has come to the rescue of the petitioners by giving directions to the respondents to secure the appointment to the petitioners, until opportunity of hearing was appropriately given to them. 7. The opportunity given by the Hon'ble Court earlier could not be availed by the respondents, so as to pass orders of termination on their own accord, as vide order dated 26.08.2014, the respondents themselves had chosen to continue these candidates on their respective post, until further orders, in light of the order dated 25.06.2012 passed by the State Government. Thus, vide order dated 26.08.2014, a conscious decision was taken by the respondents to continue the petitioners on their respective post, once appointment had been granted to them, until further orders. 8. The respondents themselves seemed to have taken full care not to discriminate the selected candidates and made every effort to continue them, which includes recommendations of Zila Parishad, Jalore as well as the State Government, as aforementioned, to continue these candidates on their respective post, as they had already been given appointment in accordance with the Rules of 2008 and such appointment needs to be protected. Thus, the respondents on their own accord continued the petitioners, who were duly selected as per the Rules of 2008, on their respective post for more than five years,. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners also argued that that the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments and also the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in plethora of judgments, have laid down the law that once the concerned candidate was innocent, and in no manner, can be said to have contributed in malpractice or any kind of fraud or preparation of the distorted results, and there is no mention of any misrepresentation of any material information or fact attributable to the concerned candidates, who have served the State for couple of years, then in those circumstances, the ouster of the concerned candidates need not be an inevitable and inexorable consequence. 10. 10. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 690 , relevant para 21 of which reads as under:— “21. There is considerable merit in the submission of Mr. Rao. It goes without saying that the appellants were innocent parties, who have not, in any manner, contributed to the preparation of the erroneous key or the distorted result. There is no mention of any fraud or malpractice against the appellants, who have served the State for nearly seven years now. In the circumstances, while inter se merit position may be relevant for the appellants, the ouster of the latter need not be an inevitable or inexorable consequence of such a re-evaluation. The re-evaluation process may additionally benefit those who have lost the hope of an appointment on the basis of a wrong key applied for evaluating the answer scripts. Such of those candidates as may be ultimately found to be issued to issue of appointment letters on the basis of their merit shall benefit by such re-evaluation and shall pick up their appointments on that basis according to their inter se position on the merit list.” 11. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has vehemently argued that it was the prerogative of the respondents to have terminated the services of the petitioners, as their appointment was found to be in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, and since the petitioners were not validly, lawfully and legally appointed, therefore, it was the duty of the State, in fact, to have terminated the services of the petitioners. However, learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out as to what was the reason available with the respondents in the year 2012, whereby they have chosen to continue the petitioners on their respective post for number of years, until they woke up in the year 2017 and started passing the termination orders. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents strongly relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Joginder Pal v. State of Punjab, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 644 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has stated that the entire selection process needs to be vitiated, if there was purported manipulation, forgery, fraud and tainted candidates. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents strongly relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Joginder Pal v. State of Punjab, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 644 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has stated that the entire selection process needs to be vitiated, if there was purported manipulation, forgery, fraud and tainted candidates. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners has refuted the applicability of the precedent law cited by learned counsel for the respondents on account of the fact that in this case, admittedly, there was no misrepresentation or any kind of taint or any kind of forgery or fraud, which was attributable to the present petitioners. 14. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, along with the precedent laws cited at the Bar, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents themselves had conducted the selection process strictly in accordance with the Rules of 2008, and thus, it was not open for them now to have reversed their own decision regarding seven years of continuous appointment of the petitioners, for no fault of on the part of the petitioners. 15. It is an admitted position that the petitioners had secured appointment strictly in accordance with the Rules of 2008 and have not made any misrepresentation or any kind of fraud or any kind of malpractice which was attributable to them, so as to result into their ouster from the service. 16. It is also an admitted position by the respondents that in the year 2012 itself, the respondents had taken a conscious decision to continue the petitioners in the service. Moreover, a speaking order was passed by the respondents in the year 2014, in which the decision of the State Government, which was taken in the year 2012 was respected and it was directed that such candidates shall be continued in service. 17. The aforesaid stand of the State Government to continue the candidates in service was further fortified, as the State Government at a subsequent stage, recommended for sanction of the posts, against which, in all 80, candidates were to be accommodated. 17. The aforesaid stand of the State Government to continue the candidates in service was further fortified, as the State Government at a subsequent stage, recommended for sanction of the posts, against which, in all 80, candidates were to be accommodated. However, the respondents by their own belief, in one of the cases, that is, in the case of Shri Anil Vyas, before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has made a statement that the present petitioners are working, and since the candidate in that case was having higher merit, therefore, he could have been given appointment, which, as per the respondents, ought to result into ouster of the present petitioners in the garb of the compliance of the aforementioned order of the Hon'ble Division Bench, despite there being no such direction in that regard, issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in that order. Thus, the reasoning given for passing of the impugned order that the same has been passed in compliance of the aforementioned order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court on 18.04.2017, has no legs to stand. 18. On perusal of the aforesaid order dated 18.04.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench, this Court finds that though the candidate in the said case was higher in merit than that of the present petitioners, but nowhere the said order requires any compliance in the form of ouster of the present petitioners from the service. Thus, the compliance of the said order dated 18.04.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench, as construed by the respondents, at the inception itself, was wrong, and thus, it was not open for the respondents to have passed the impugned termination orders in the garb of making compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, even when no such compliance was required in the said order, so as to enable the respondents to reverse their own decision by terminating the services of the present petitioners. 19. 19. Thus, it seems that the respondents are playing with the lives of the persons, who have been appointed by the respondents themselves in accordance with the Rules of 2008 and the respondents are trying to fire gun on the shoulders of Shri Anil Vyas by saying that the respondents are doing it for making compliance of the aforementioned order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in his favour. 20. This Court also feels that once the petitioners have been continued in service from 2010 to 2017 in pursuance of the conscious decision taken by the State Government, as aforesaid, then as per the precedent law cited by learned counsel for the petitioners, for the reasons which are beyond the control of the petitioners, if their appointment was continued, the same needs to be protected. Thus, the said precedent law is apparently clear that such rights created in favour of the petitioners in pursuance of their regular appointment in accordance with the Rules of 2008, ought to be protected, except in the situation, where malpractice, misrepresentation of material fact or information or any kind of fraud was attributable to the concerned candidate, or there were tainted candidates, which would result into ouster of the present petitioners. However, this Court finds that the precedent law cited by learned counsel for the respondent is not applicable to the present set of facts, as no negative inference out of the act of the petitioners can be drawn entitling their appointments to be protected. 21. In light of the aforesaid discussion as well as the precedent law cited by learned counsel for the petitioners, the present writ petitions are allowed and while quashing and setting aside the impugned termination orders dated 23.05.2017, the respondents are directed to extend all the consequential benefits to the present petitioners.