JUDGMENT 1. For the reasons stated in the applications, delay of 67 days in filing the instant appeals is condoned. 2. The applications is allowed. D.B. SAW No. 939/2018 : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The peculiar facts of the case compel us to dismiss the appeal. 2. Notwithstanding the cut-off marks being 37%, the respondent who had obtained 36.33% marks was given appointment as a Prabodhak on 22.07.2010. When this was detected the service of the respondent was terminated on 09.11.2010. 3. Writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed on 09.04.2014 with a direction that he should be heard before taking action. 4. But much before that, on 25.06.2012 the State Government took a decision not to remove the Prabodhaks who were given appointment notwithstanding they had obtained less than 37% marks and qua the respondent a fresh order was passed on 26.08.2014 that his service shall continue. 5. On 07.10.2016, the Zila Parishad, Jalore recommended creation of additional post, being 80 in number, so that candidates who had obtained less than 37% marks and who were given appointments as Prabodhak could be continued. 6. Yet inspite of the facts noted above the service of the respondent was attempted to be terminated because one Anil Vyas who had secured less than 37% marks had approached the Court pointing out that persons having secured less marks than him were given appointment. The Court directed appointment to be given to Anil Vyas. 7. Notwithstanding, the State Government deciding not to remove the service of the Prabodhaks including respondent, but to accommodate Anil Vyas, respondent's service was to be terminated. 8. Noting the aforesaid facts, the learned Single Judge has granted relief to the respondent and quashed the termination order dated 23.05.2017. 9. We highlight that the conscious decision of the State Government taken on 25.06.2012 not to remove from service the Prabodhaks followed by a specific decision taken on 26.08.2014 pertaining to the respondent to the effect that his service would not be terminated warrants the view taken by the learned Single Judge to be accepted. 10. The appeal is dismissed.