JUDGMENT Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. - The controversy involved in the present petitions relates to selection and appointment made by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter shall be referred to as "the Corporation") for the post of Conductor in pursuance of advertisement No.219/2009-10 and advertisement No.152/2010- 11 issued on 05.03.2010 and 24.09.2010 respectively. The broad classification of the dispute, raised in the present petitions, can be made in following three categories:- (A) The petitioners in this category have all been appointed on the post of Conductor and later on confirmed and now in view of revised list prepared, they are not finding their place in the merit. The petitioners in this batch of writ petitions have prayed for a direction to allow them to continue in service and the impugned action and revised list is sought to be declared illegal by this court. (B) The petitioners in this category have prayed for a direction to give them appointment as their names find place in the revised list/selected candidates, prepared by the Corporation by inserting 943 candidates including the petitioners. (C) The petitioners in this category of writ petitions have prayed for a direction to give appointment as per initial result declared by the Corporation and they have further challenged the revised result dated 28.08.2017, prepared by the Corporation. 2. The present recruitment has a chequered history of litigation. The candidates who participated in the selection process, initiated by issuing advertisement in the year 2010, have approached this court on several occasions by filing writ petitions. The warring claims of successful and unsuccessful candidates, have yet not reached to the final stage. The candidates who participated in the selection process, have not yet reached to a stage, where it can be safely said that their right of employment has been secured after undergoing various rounds of litigation. This is a classic case where the employer at most of the times has not been able to complete the selection, in fair, impartial & final manner. 3. The woes of the candidates have some time been fueled due to judicial orders passed by the court from time to time. The series of litigation in respect of public employment has in fact shaken the confidence of upright, hard working and honest candidates as the dispute in respect of selection started immediately after declaration of result of written test conducted by the Corporation. 4. The series of litigation in respect of public employment has in fact shaken the confidence of upright, hard working and honest candidates as the dispute in respect of selection started immediately after declaration of result of written test conducted by the Corporation. 4. This court, before dealing with the controversy raised in the present batch of writ petitions, deems it proper to give the background of the previous series of litigation which has marred the final selection till date. 5. The Corporation, after issuing advertisement No.219/2009- 10 dated 05.03.2010 and advertisement No.152/2010-11 dated 24.09.2010 for the post of Driver, Conductor, Artisan Grade-II and Artisan Grade-III, conducted the written test/examination for all the posts on 09.01.2011. The Corporation on 19.01.2011 declared the result of written test/examination for each post category-wise i.e. General/SC/ST/OBC/SBC and the cutoff marks for the post of Conductor, in different categories, was as under:- Category Cut-Off Marks General 65 SC 59 ST 69 OBC 77 SBC 73 6. The candidates of reserved categories, specially OBC candidates, found them not to be selected in their own category because of high cut-off marks than General category and as such they raised a grievance by filing S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2183/2011 [Narpat Dan v. RSRTC & Anr.] along with other petitions, before the Principal Seat at Jodhpur. The writ petitions were allowed vide order dated 31.05.2011 with a direction to the Corporation to re-draw the merit list considering the candidates of reserved categories of SC/ST/OBC/SBC against unreserved posts, as per their respective merit and thereafter, remaining candidates of reserved categories of OBC and other reserved categories, were to be considered against the quota of reservation prescribed according to the Rules and then to further publish cut-off marks for reserved categories and General category. The operative portion of the order dated 31.05.2011 passed at the Principal Seat at Jodhpur is reproduced hereunder:- "In this view of the matter, all these writ petitions are allowed. The cut-off marks declared by the respondent Corporation vide Annex.-7 (filed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2183/2011) for selection on the posts of Driver/Conductor/Artisan Grade-II/Artisan Grade-III and further proceedings of selection made in pursuance thereof is hereby quashed. The cut-off marks declared by the respondent Corporation vide Annex.-7 (filed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2183/2011) for selection on the posts of Driver/Conductor/Artisan Grade-II/Artisan Grade-III and further proceedings of selection made in pursuance thereof is hereby quashed. The respondent Corporation is hereby directed to redraw the merit while considering the candidates of reserved categories of SC/ST/OBC/SBC against unreserved posts as per their respective merit and, thereafter, remaining candidates of reserved categories of OBC and other reserved categories may be considered against the quota of reservation prescribed according to rules and, then, publish cut-off marks for reserved categories and General category strictly as per adjudication made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases. Thereafter, further process of selection may be proceeded with. Entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment/order. There shall, however, be no order as to costs." 7. The Corporation after following the directions issued by the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in Narpat Dan's case (supra) had redrawn merit list and issued the cut-off marks category-wise for the post of Conductor as under:- Category Re-drawn CutOff Marks Previous CutOff Marks General 75 (Old 65) SC 58 (Old 59) ST 67 (Old 69) OBC 71 (Old 77) SBC 69 (Old 73) 8. The Corporation after re-drawing the merit list was in the process of making selection, however, it insisted on the condition of possessing HMV Driving Licence for the post of Conductor. The candidates feeling aggrieved against such condition approached this court by filing S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.14710/2010 [Nirmal Kumar Jain & Ors. v. RSRTC & Ors.] and other connected writ petitions reported in RLW 2012 (3) Raj.2212. The candidates in the writ petitions contended that the condition of possessing HMV Driving Licence for the post of Conductor was arbitrary and there was no proper amendment in the Regulations of the Corporation. 9. The writ petitions came to be decided by this court on the basis of agreement before the court vide order dated 02.09.2011 and the court found that the order of Corporation dated 23.04.2010 for possessing HMV License was not to be given effect till it was notified in the gazette. 9. The writ petitions came to be decided by this court on the basis of agreement before the court vide order dated 02.09.2011 and the court found that the order of Corporation dated 23.04.2010 for possessing HMV License was not to be given effect till it was notified in the gazette. The court further observed that the petitioners who had appeared in the written examination were eligible to appear in the trade test provided they obtained the cutoff marks or qualifying marks in the written examination. It would be appropriate to quote the operative portion of the order dated 02.09.2011 passed by this court, which reads as under:- "18. In view of the discussion made above, I am not required to go into other aspects of the matter, like conflict of regulations with the provisions of Act of 1988 and the Rules made thereunder as learned Advocate General agreed to look into the Rules of 1990 for amendment, if in future Corporation needs to ply/run their business without a Conductor and thereby to give dual responsibilities to the Driver and at the same time, to have an arrangement to use Driver and Conductor with interchangeable duties in certain contingencies. Looking to all these facts, issue remains for my consideration is that as to what relief can be granted to petitioners. The issue aforesaid was argued by both the parties and they agreed that selection made to the post of Conductor/Driver may not be disturbed as the Corporation has incurred more than Rs. 1 crore and they are in need of Driver/Conductor to ply buses smoothly for the convenience of the public at large. In view of the agreement on the issue of relief by both the parties, these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions and observations:- 1. The Corporation will not effect order dated 23.4.2010 and amendment specified therein, on the petitioners, till it is notified in the gazette. 2. The petitioners, who have already appeared in the written examination either under the interim order of this court or at the instance of the Corporation, would be eligible to appear in the trade test provided they have obtained required cut off marks or qualifying marks in the written test. 3. 2. The petitioners, who have already appeared in the written examination either under the interim order of this court or at the instance of the Corporation, would be eligible to appear in the trade test provided they have obtained required cut off marks or qualifying marks in the written test. 3. The petitioners, who have already undergone for written examination and also for trade test, would be considered for their appointment to the posts of Driver or Conductor, as the case may be, provided they have obtained merit position in the selection and subject to qualifying interview or medical test, as the case may be and if any. 4. Those petitioners, who were not in possession of the qualification as per unamendment regulations of the Corporation on the last date of submission of the application i.e. 24.9.2010, will have no right of consideration for appointment to the posts of Driver and Conductor, as the case may be. 5. The Corporation would be at liberty to request the State Government for sending amended regulations for its gazette notification and State Government would also be at liberty to make amendment in the Rules of 1990, if they so wish, after taking note of proposed changes in the working of the Corporation with the introduction of buses with new technology. 6. If any of the petitioners obtained merit position for their appointment on the posts of Driver or Conductor, as the case may be, then they have agreed to possess required qualification as provided under amended regulations within a period of two years, if amended regulation is notified in a gazette and period of two years would be counted from the date of gazette notification. In case, they failed to obtain the required qualification within the period given above, liable to be discontinued from the services of the Corporation. However, to obtain the qualification of secondary class a period of 3 years from the date of notification would be admissible for them to obtain the required qualification. The aforesaid condition may be incorporated while issuing appointment orders. 7. The Corporation will run their buses in compliance of the Rules of 1990 unless amended by the Government to have a provision to run a bus without a Conductor. 8. Directions referred to aforesaid would be applicable only to petitioners before this High Court and appeared in the written examination. 7. The Corporation will run their buses in compliance of the Rules of 1990 unless amended by the Government to have a provision to run a bus without a Conductor. 8. Directions referred to aforesaid would be applicable only to petitioners before this High Court and appeared in the written examination. This is to avoid delay in completion of selections. 9. Respondent Corporation has agreed not to debar any candidate for want of batch, till it becomes available with the Transport Department. 10. Aforesaid arrangement has been agreed by both the parties so that selection is not disturbed. This is more so when it is unknown to everyone as to whether any of the petitioners will fall in the merit to get appointment because result of the selection is yet to be declared by the Corporation. Directions aforesaid are thus kept limited to the petitioners as given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and another reported in JT 2007(2) SC 534 wherein holding application of scaling for selection to the Judicial Services to be illegal, selection was not disturbed so as the application of scaling and marks reduced therein, however, relief was granted limited to the petitioners, if they obtained merit position vis-a-vis selected candidates." (Emphasis supplied.) 10. The Corporation had conducted the written examination of 100 marks and 50 marks were prescribed for trade test. The candidates who had qualified or had obtained more than the cutoff marks in written examination were asked to appear in the trade test and the trade test consisted of following three components:- Component Marks Theory 20 marks Practical (Driving) 20 marks Simulator 10 marks Total 50 marks (Passing marks 30) 11. The Corporation declared final result of written examination along with trade test on 23.09.2011. The Corporation declared final result of written examination along with trade test on 23.09.2011. The candidates who had the grievance about marks bifurcated in trade test and further having minimum 30 passing marks, raised grievance before this court by filing S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.13855/2011 [Prem Prakash Sharma v. RSRTC & Anr.] and other connected writ petition which came to be decided by the court vide order dated 09.11.2011 and the court gave following directions:- "Looking to the fact that the respondent Corporation has agreed to redress the grievance as indicated in their arguments and the petitioners are also in agreement to the aforesaid, these writ petitions so as the stay applications are disposed of on the following agreed terms between the parties. 1. Those petitioners who have appeared for the post of Conductor and were asked to undertake driving to assess their performance for 30 marks out of 50 marks would be benefited by redetermination of marks of trade test on the percentage of marks as obtained in the written examination of 20 marks in trade test. Whatever percentage of marks they have obtained out of 20 marks would be taken into consideration on remaining 30 marks and providing same percentage of marks on 30 marks, determination of marks on total 50 marks would be made. For illustration, if a candidate has obtained 15 marks out of 20, his marks in the trade test would be considered as 37.5 out of 50 marks. Same way, if one has obtained 10 marks out of 20, then his marks would be taken as 25 out of 50 marks. Aforesaid formula would be applicable to the petitioners as well as those appeared in the trade test pursuant to the order of the court in the earlier litigation where challenge was to conditions to possess driving licence for the post of Conductor. The merit position for such petitioners would be redetermined based on the aforesaid and if they find place in the merit, the Corporation will give appointment to the meritorious candidates. This direction would be applicable to those petitioners who had contested the matter by challenging requirement of driving licence and remain successful in the petitions. 2. The merit position for such petitioners would be redetermined based on the aforesaid and if they find place in the merit, the Corporation will give appointment to the meritorious candidates. This direction would be applicable to those petitioners who had contested the matter by challenging requirement of driving licence and remain successful in the petitions. 2. The respondent Corporation will not insist upon minimum pass marks in the trade test, accordingly, one would not be denied benefit of appointment merely for the reason that he/she has failed to secure minimum pass marks in the trade test. The appointment would, however, be purely on the basis of merit and if one has failed to secure merit marks, he/she would not be entitled for appointment. 3. So far as discrepancies shown in the first list on website and amended list is concerned, petitioners, who are aggrieved by the aforesaid, would be at liberty to make a representation to the respondent Corporation to allow inspection of copies to see their actual marks as written examination as well as the written test as a part of trade test. After inspection of copies, if any discrepancy is found in the marks shown in the final list, the Corporation will rectify the mistake by indicating the same marks as is obtained by the candidate in the written examination as well as written test as a part of trade test. 4. So far as petitioners who were allowed for the trade test pursuant to the cut off marks indicated by the Corporation at the first instance would not be deprived to get appointment subject to their merit position only on the ground that they failed to get required cut off marks subsequently declared i. e. after the judgment in the case of Narpat Dan (supra). 5. Those petitioners who are aggrieved by the result of the medical test would be at liberty to make a representation to the respondent Corporation for their reexamination. In case of submission of representation, Corporation will get the candidate reexamined by the medical board to be constituted by the Superintendent, SMS Medical College & Hospital, Jaipur. Aforesaid directions would be applicable to those petitioners who are aggrieved by the medical examination and would also be applicable to the medical certificate in regard to their colour blindness. In case of submission of representation, Corporation will get the candidate reexamined by the medical board to be constituted by the Superintendent, SMS Medical College & Hospital, Jaipur. Aforesaid directions would be applicable to those petitioners who are aggrieved by the medical examination and would also be applicable to the medical certificate in regard to their colour blindness. If any of the candidates is found medical fit and obtains required merit position then he would be given appointment. 6. So far as issue of qualification of 4 candidates to the post of Artisan Gr III is concerned, their cases are sub judice before this court thus final outcome of those writ petitions will decide fact of such candidates. 7. The Corporation would extend benefit of 1% reservation to those candidates falling in SBC category subject to their merit position. 8. Petitioners, who have appeared for the post of Conductor have agreed to abide by the directions issued by this court in the case of Nirmal Kumar Jain (supra) and, accordingly, would possess driving licence within the period given therein. 9. The directions aforesaid would not be applicable to those petitioners who had earlier preferred writ petitions before the Principal Seat, Jodhpur on the same issue and their writ petitions were dismissed thereafter. 10. The issue as to whether reserve caste category candidates taken benefit of relaxation or concession in the selection would be entitled to shift to general category is kept open as presently aforesaid has not been pressed by the petitioners Same way, the issue regarding determination of merit after considering academic qualification is also kept open for adjudication in future, if so raised. The respondent Corporation is now expected to undertake and complete the exercise, as indicated above, within shortest possible time. 12. The aforesaid judgment, while deciding the issue regarding trade test, evolved a formula and it was made applicable to the petitioners and those who had appeared in the trade test pursuant to order of the court in earlier litigation, relating to possessing of HMV Driving License and the merit of such candidates was to be re-determined. 13. The Corporation after decision of Prem Prakash Sharma's case issued appointment orders in the month of January, 2012 and February, 2012. 13. The Corporation after decision of Prem Prakash Sharma's case issued appointment orders in the month of January, 2012 and February, 2012. The Corporation while preparing the merit considered only those candidates who were in merit and had approached the court till 09.11.2011, as per the judgment given by this court in Prem Prakash Sharma's case. 14. The candidates, who were in merit but were not given appointment on the ground that they had not approached the High Court till 09.11.2011, challenged the action of the Corporation of fixing the cut-off date of 09.11.2011 and further also raised certain issues in respect of irregularities said to be committed in the selection process, by way of filing S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3600/2012 [Ramesh Chand v. RSRTC & Ors.] & other connected writ petitions and the writ petitions came to be decided by this court vide order dated 30.07.2012 and the court decided following issues:- "So far as present writ petitions are concerned, they involve certain questions concerned to the aforesaid selection itself. Since many fold grievances have been raised thus they are decided as follows - Issue No.1 - Learned counsel for petitioners allege that the candidates failed to secure required cut off marks in the written examination have been given appointment leaving those who are better placed. It is also submitted that there are candidates who have not secured final cut off marks, yet given appointment. Learned counsel for respondents submit that for general category, initially, cut off marks in written examination were 65, later on, it was changed to 75 however pursuant to the directions of this court in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) those candidates were adjudged suitably for trade test if secured earlier cut off marks but subject to the condition that they had earlier approached this court. This is in view of the fact that they were not party in the case of Narpat Dan (supra) thus judgment in that case should not have adversely affected them. I find that while making selection, respondents determined cut off marks on two occasions. Initially, on completion of written examination so as to make candidates eligible for trade test. The cut off marks was changed in view of the judgment in the case of Narpat Dan (supra). I find that while making selection, respondents determined cut off marks on two occasions. Initially, on completion of written examination so as to make candidates eligible for trade test. The cut off marks was changed in view of the judgment in the case of Narpat Dan (supra). The revision of cut off marks was made from lower to higher only for general/open category candidates otherwise it was lowered down for reserve category candidates. However, it was without hearing them either in the case of Narpat Dan (supra) or by the respondents thus a direction was given by this court in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) to consider petitioners therein for appointment but it was only for general/open category candidates who had secured higher marks than initial cut off marks. Hence, if any candidate failed to secure cut off marks either prescribed initially or later on yet allowed in the trade test and selected leaving the petitioners then action of the respondents is discriminatory and illegal. It is also seen by this court that even the candidates secured less marks than the final cut off marks, have also been selected and appointed. The aforesaid is also illegal as respondents cannot ignore candidates having higher marks. It is seen that earlier cut off marks for general category candidates was 65, whereas, for OBC it was 77. Aforesaid cut off marks were changed, making it 75 marks for general category and 71 for OBC category to become eligible for trade test. As per the judgment in the case of Prem Prakash Shama(supra), general category candidates, who approached this court in the aforesaid set of petitions on or prior to 9.11.2011 would be entitled to the benefit of earlier cut off marks thus, if any other candidate was permitted to appear in the trade test followed by selection and appointment without obtaining required cut off marks in the written examination then it is due to default of the respondents. The respondents are accordingly directed to reconsider the matter so that no candidate is continued if obtained less marks than final cut off marks or the cut off marks of the written examination. If respondents intend to continue them, then petitioners who have secured better marks would also be eligible for appointment. The respondents are accordingly directed to reconsider the matter so that no candidate is continued if obtained less marks than final cut off marks or the cut off marks of the written examination. If respondents intend to continue them, then petitioners who have secured better marks would also be eligible for appointment. The direction aforesaid would be applied after taking precaution of those candidates belonging to open/general category and were part of the litigation in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) or in the earlier litigation thus covered by the direction No.4 in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) because their required cut off marks for written examination would be 65 but not for others. The aforesaid arrangement was allowed in view of the consent of the Corporation in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra), however, if general category candidates had not approached this court before 9.11.2011 then they would not be entitled to such benefit because consent of the Corporation cannot be applied in rem, rather, their candidature would be considered as per the revised cut off marks. Accordingly, first issue is allowed in favour of the petitioners. Respondents would be free to discontinue the candidates if appointed ignoring cut off marks in the written examination or final cut off marks. The discontinuance would however be after giving an opportunity of hearing to them. In case they are continued despite their low marks than cut off marks then those petitioners, who have obtained higher marks, would be entitled to appointment. Issue No.2 - Second issue raised by the petitioners is arising out of the judgment in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra). In the aforesaid judgment, it was agreed that those petitioners, who were not in possession of driving licence and applied for the post of Conductor, would be given proportionate marks in the trade test on the formula given in the said judgment. It is contended that the formula so evolved by this court in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (surpa) should have been applied irrespective of the fact as to whether candidate approached this court on or before 9.11.2011. This is more so when many candidates, who had not even earlier challenged the condition to possess driving licence for the post of Conductor yet given benefit of revised marks in the trade test based on the formula evolved by this court. This is more so when many candidates, who had not even earlier challenged the condition to possess driving licence for the post of Conductor yet given benefit of revised marks in the trade test based on the formula evolved by this court. Learned counsel for respondents submit that revised marks in the trade test have been allowed only in favour of those who approached this court on or before 9.11.2011 thus covered by the judgment in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra). In fact, judgment in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) was on agreed terms thus is not applicable in rem. Those, who failed to approach this court in time, were not given benefit of said judgment as finality to the selection was given immediately after judgment in the aforesaid case, accordingly, appointments were made. If any candidate has been given benefit of revised marks in the trade test though did not approach this court on or before 9.11.2011, corrective action would be taken by the Corporation in those cases. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for parties and find that judgment in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) was more or less on agreed terms. As per the judgment in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra), revised marks in the trade test was to be applied. The issue aforesaid was considered in the light of the condition to possess driving licence for the post of Conductor and it was only for those who were not in possession of driving licence. The challenge to the condition was thus not made by those who were having driving licence while applying for the post of Conductor. To clarify the aforesaid, the revised criteria for trade test was applicable only on those who approached this court on or before 9.11.2011 i.e. the date of judgment in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) or in the earlier judgment in the case of Nirmal Kumar Jain (supra). The judgment aforesaid is not applicable to those who were in possession of driving licence so as Conductor's licence while applying for the post of Conductor and failed to challenge it before appointment. The judgment aforesaid is not applicable to those who were in possession of driving licence so as Conductor's licence while applying for the post of Conductor and failed to challenge it before appointment. If the Corporation has revised the marks of trade test even for those candidates who were in possession of driving licence and not earlier challenged the condition to possess driving licence while applying for the post of Conductor, are not to be governed by the directions in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra). It is for the reason that immediately after the judgment in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra), appointments were given thus whoever failed to approach this court before appointment cannot be governed by the earlier judgment due to delay and consent of the Corporation is limited to those earlier petitions. Accordingly, if the Corporation has revised the marks of the trade test for those who are in possession of driving licence while applying for the post of Conductor or for those who had not approached this court on or before 9.11.2011 and denied benefit of revised marks to the petitioners then their action becomes discriminatory in nature. Accordingly, they are directed either to withdraw benefit of revised marks in the trade test for those who were not before the court on or before 9.11.2011 and otherwise the condition was not challenged as candidates were in possession of driving licence. If the appointments are cancelled in those cases, it should be by applying principles of natural justice. In case, respondent Corporation takes a decision to continue them, then all the petitioners would be eligible for revised cut off marks in the trade test, who applied for the post of Conductor and if find more marks than of candidates appointed, would also be eligible for appointment. The limited application of earlier judgment with cut off date in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) can be in view of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & ors", reported as, (2002) 6 SCC 562 . Therein also, petitions filed after the earlier and main judgment were not entertained. Issue No.3 - The third issue pertains to certain questions having wrong answers and even recommended by the committee to delete them. Therein also, petitions filed after the earlier and main judgment were not entertained. Issue No.3 - The third issue pertains to certain questions having wrong answers and even recommended by the committee to delete them. Learned counsel for petitioners submit that PHS Consultants Pvt Ltd, the company conducted the examination, admitted that three questions were having problem as one question was having all options wrong, whereas, in other two questions, wrong answers were accepted as right answers. The respondent Corporation deleted only one question, accordingly, bonus mark was given for one question, however, as per report of the committee, two questions were having wrong answers yet no action was taken to award marks to the candidates opted for correct answers. Learned counsel for respondent Corporation submit that so far as one question is concerned, it has already been deleted and bonus mark has been awarded. So far as other two questions are concerned, agency informed about it on 16.1.2012 though prior to it, appointments were given thus selection process had already been completed. The issue regarding two incorrect answers was never raised by the petitioners. I have considered submissions of learned counsel for parties. I find that in few petitions, issue has been raised for denial of marks to the petitioners though they had given correct answers. It was precisely for the reason that answer key of the two questions were set with the wrong answer. The consultant had realised the mistake. In view of the aforesaid, petitioners who had given correct answer of the question, could not secure marks, whereas, the candidate, who had given incorrect answer, could get marks on account of faulty answer key for two questions. The respondent Corporation should have rectified the list, however, I find that now not only select list has been finalised but appointments have also been given to the candidates. If a direction is given to amend the entire select list, then it will unsettle the entire selection and appointment, that too, without hearing the candidates, who have already been appointed. Thus, to balance the equities, it is directed to the respondent Corporation to re-assess the marks of those petitioners who have raised the aforesaid issue and if they had given correct answers as per the report of the consultant, then may be awarded marks as a consequence thereof. Thus, to balance the equities, it is directed to the respondent Corporation to re-assess the marks of those petitioners who have raised the aforesaid issue and if they had given correct answers as per the report of the consultant, then may be awarded marks as a consequence thereof. If, after carrying out the direction aforesaid, marks of such petitioners comes equivalent or more than the cut off then their cases for appointment may be considered if they are otherwise found eligible and meritorious, then be given appointment without disturbing the appointments of other candidates. The direction aforesaid would apply only in those cases where the issue for wrong answer has been raised and not to other petitioners where this issue has not been raised. The directions aforesaid has also been given in the peculiar circumstances with limited application so that settled things may not be unsettled unnecessarily and to avoid multiplication of litigation. Issue No.4 - The fourth issue pertains to medical fitness of the candidates. It is mainly in regard to the condition of colour blindness for the post of Conductor. It is stated by learned counsel for petitioners that colour blindness may be material for the post of Driver but not for the post of Conductor, however, respondents adjudged many candidates to be unsuitable finding them to be suffering from colour blindness ignoring that aforesaid is not required for the post of Conductor. Learned counsel for respondent Corporation, on the other hand, submit that as and when a candidate made a request, medical examination was got conducted from SMS Hospital, Jaipur. The court earlier directed to conduct medical examination for the post of Driver thus it has nothing to do with the post of Conductor but medical fitness for the post of Conductor is also required and one is having colour blindness then he is not suitable for the post. I have considered submissions of learned counsel and find that who is medically suitable for the post of Conductor and Driver is to be determined by the respondent Corporation. I have considered submissions of learned counsel and find that who is medically suitable for the post of Conductor and Driver is to be determined by the respondent Corporation. If a decision is taken to hold a candidate to be medically unfit for the post of Conductor, if he is having colour blindness then no interference is required to be made, however, if colour blindness is not coming in the way of the post of Conductor then respondent Corporation is directed to reconsider the matter to enable a candidate to get appointment to the post of Conductor subject to his merit, if he is declared medically unfit on account of colour blindness while seeking selection on the post of Conductor. Accordingly issue aforesaid is left for the Corporation to determine by a speaking order as to whether colour blindness would be an impediment to get appointment on the post of Conductor. In case it is held that colour blindness would not be a bar to seek appointment on the post of Conductor then petitioners should not be debarred from appointment to the post of Conductor on the ground of colour blindness subject to their merit. In case decision is taken otherwise, then petitioners would not be entitled to appointment on the aforesaid ground. Issue No.5 - The fifth issue is in regard to revision of marks in trade test on the formula given by this court in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra). The issue aforesaid is nothing but repetition of the issue already determined at issue No.2 thus needs no elaboration and direction. Issue No.6 - It is stated that condition to obtain minimum passing marks in the trade test was not accepted by this court in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) thus appointment should have been given irrespective of marks in trade test. Learned counsel for respondents submit that condition to possess minimum passing marks has not been waived in all cases but was re-calculated for the petitioners who approached this court earlier to challenge the condition to possess driving licence. In fact, the issue aforesaid was decided after holding that driving licence is not required by the candidate applied for the post of Conductor. In fact, the issue aforesaid was decided after holding that driving licence is not required by the candidate applied for the post of Conductor. However, requirement of passing marks in trade test was not done away in general and earlier judgment is not applicable in rem as the judgment dated 9.11.2011 was rendered on agreed terms. If issues are kept open then process of appointments cannot be completed at any point of time without limiting cut off date to approach this court. The view is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Kailash Chand Sharma etc v. State of Rajasthan & ors", reported as (2002) 6 SCC 562 . I have considered the submissions and find that the issue for possession of minimum marks in the trade test was challenged. The challenge was by those who could not obtain minimum required marks in the trade test in absence of knowledge of driving and driving licence thus minimum marks could not be obtained by them because they were trade tested for driving thus unable to secure marks. The Corporation accordingly agreed to ignore passing marks in the trade test so that appointment may be made timely. This court accordingly issued directions as agreed by the Corporation, however, direction in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) was applicable to the petitioners approached therein or on earlier occasion in the case of Nirmal Kumar Jain (supra). It is mainly for the reason that those who did not approach this court in time cannot be given benefit by keeping selection open indefinitely. Accordingly, judgment dated 9.11.2011 is on the agreed terms of the Corporation thus cannot be treated to be a judgment in rem but was applicable to the petitioners therein. If fact, if number of petitioners would have been more even at the initial time, the Corporation was at liberty to make contest, however, taking note of the size of the petitioners on earlier occasion and urgency of recruitment, if Corporation has agreed for certain terms, then it cannot be considered to be a direction in rem but is limited to the petitioners there in the earlier litigation. Accordingly, issue No.6 is decided against the petitioners and in favour of respondent Corporation. Issue No.7 - Issue aforesaid pertains to the act of discrimination in regard to the candidates having spectacles correction. Accordingly, issue No.6 is decided against the petitioners and in favour of respondent Corporation. Issue No.7 - Issue aforesaid pertains to the act of discrimination in regard to the candidates having spectacles correction. The issue aforesaid has not been pressed by the petitioners, accordingly, dismissed. Issue No.8 - It is urged that candidates from waiting list were given appointment subsequent to the judgment in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) by issuing of lists on three occasions though such candidates should not have been given appointment as the reserve list can be used only when a candidate has failed to join the post, however, respondent Corporation made appointment of the candidates from reserve list. Learned counsel for respondent Corporation submit that few candidates were appointed from the reserve list. It was only those who secured equal marks to the cut off. It was due to non-joining of the candidates from the main list. I have considered the submissions and find that the reserve/waiting list can be operated only when a candidate failed to join the post, however, in the present matter, it is not indicated as to who was the candidate(s) failed to join the post though averment in the reply exist to the aforesaid effect but it is quite vague. If candidate(s) from waiting/reserve list has been appointed, it is required to be reviewed by the respondent Corporation as definite directions for their discontinuance is not given in absence of an opportunity of hearing to them and as they are not party to the litigation. In any case, respondent Corporation would review the issue aforesaid. If the candidates appointed from the waiting list or had not earlier approached this court yet given benefit of revised marks in the trade test or ignored the required passing marks in the trade test then their order of appointment needs to be reviewed. However, if a decision is taken to discontinue them, it would be after an opportunity of hearing. If any candidate is appointed though secured less than the cut off marks then there would be no justification to continue him but, again, it would be done after affording them an opportunity of hearing. Aforesaid issue is decided accordingly. However, if a decision is taken to discontinue them, it would be after an opportunity of hearing. If any candidate is appointed though secured less than the cut off marks then there would be no justification to continue him but, again, it would be done after affording them an opportunity of hearing. Aforesaid issue is decided accordingly. Issue No.9 - It is alleged that certain petitioners were there in the litigation in the case of Nirmal Kumar Jain (supra) and in connected petitions yet not given benefit of the directions issued in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) to the extent it was made applicable. This is in regard to the condition to possess driving licence while applying for the post of Conductor. Learned counsel for respondents submit that those governed by the judgment in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) and were petitioners therein or in the case of Nirmal Kumar Jain (supra) have been extended benefit, if they were not in possession of driving licence while applying for the post of Conductor. It was applied only for those who had challenged the aforesaid condition. I have considered the submissions. The judgment in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) is very clear, wherein, while issuing directions in regard to the condition to possess driving licence and revised criteria for trade test, it was applied to the petitioners therein and who were there in the earlier litigation in the case of Nirmal Kumar Jain (supra). Respondents have accepted the aforesaid thus, if any of the petitioners who was there in the earlier litigation in the case of Nirmal Kumar Jain or Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) then they would be entitled to the benefit of revised criteria as laid down in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra). The issue is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners. If any of the candidates secured required cut off marks then he would be entitled for appointment. Issues No.10 to 16 - The issues No.10 to 16 are either stand decided while deciding the earlier issues or are not pressed thus need no elaboration and decision as agreed by both the parties. If any of the candidates secured required cut off marks then he would be entitled for appointment. Issues No.10 to 16 - The issues No.10 to 16 are either stand decided while deciding the earlier issues or are not pressed thus need no elaboration and decision as agreed by both the parties. With the aforesaid, all the issues raised by the petitioners in reference to the earlier recruitment to the post of Conductor, Driver etc, the writ petitions and review petitions are disposed of with the directions to the respondents for compliance within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order." (Emphasis supplied.) 15. The candidates felt aggrieved against the order dated 30.07.2011 passed in the case of Ramesh Chand (supra) filed D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.1396/2012 [Vishnu Lal Sen v. RSRTC & Ors.] and 126 other cognate cases. The Division Bench of this court summarized the issues, for consideration before it, as follows:- "(i) Whether the right of fair consideration of the candidates participated in the selection process held pursuant to advertisement no.219/2009-10 & 152/2010-11 can be evaluated on two different standards/yardsticks by the Corporation in the mode of selection held for the post of Conductor ? (ii) Whether consent/agreement of the Corporation tendered & recorded by the learned Single Judge in the earlier batch of petitions preferred & known as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13855/2011 (Prem Prakash Sharma v. RSRTC & Anr.) decided on 09.11.2011 could remain confined to the writ petitioners who approached upto 9-11-2011 ? (iii) Whether the delay as alleged by the learned Single Judge can be held fatal depriving right of fair consideration of the candidates who had participated in the self same selection process along with those who are saved ?" 16. The Division Bench vide order dated 27.09.2016 allowed the appeals, set aside the order of the Single Bench dated 30.07.2011 and directed the Corporation to give benefit to all the candidates who had participated in the selection process, as per the principles laid down by the Single Bench in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) dated 09.11.2011. The Division Bench vide order dated 27.09.2016 allowed the appeals, set aside the order of the Single Bench dated 30.07.2011 and directed the Corporation to give benefit to all the candidates who had participated in the selection process, as per the principles laid down by the Single Bench in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) dated 09.11.2011. The operative portion of the order dated 27.09.2016 passed by the Division Bench is reproduced hereunder:- "The Apex Court in the judgment dated 21-4-2016 (supra), observed that the distinction introduced by the learned Single Judge of the candidates who approached the Court on or before 9-11-2011 or thereafter does not hold a valid reasoning and is not sustainable in law at the same time granted liberty to the intervenors to work out their remedy before the High Court in tune with the principle laid down and the conclusion as well as the result arrived at in the Civil Appeals and in our considered view the present appellants being similarly situated are entitled to claim parity and the formula arrived at by the learned Single Judge in its order dated 9-11-2011 deserves to be applied in rem to the candidates who had participated in the selection process & the submission made by the counsel for the Corporation that the principle laid down by the Apex Court remained confined to the candidates who at once appointed & lateron terminated alike that of Hanuman Singh approached the Apex Court, such defence is wholly without substance and in our considered view after the sacrosanct date 9-11-2011 has been considered by the Apex Court of which we have made a reference, does not hold a valid reasoning, leaves no manner of doubt that the candidates who had participated in the selection process are at par and we are of the view that the terms which were consented by the Corporation and recorded by the learned Single Judge in its order dated 9-11-2011 will indeed be applicable in rem to the candidates who had participated in the selection process initiated pursuant to the advertisement in question. As regards the submission made by counsel for respondent-Corporation that the candidates appointed have not been impleaded as party respondents, in our considered view is without substance for the reason that the present appeals-writ petitions came to be preferred against the inaction/arbitrary action of the respondent Corporation in holding selection process pursuant to advertisement in question and since the Corporation is party to the litigation & impleaded as respondent & sufficient opportunity has been afforded to those who have been given appointment by impleading them as party in the appeals/writ petitions in the representative capacity and that apart it is normally the merit which will prevail besides it claiming no relief against any individual candidate and prayed for by the appellants as such are at least not the necessary party to be impleaded as respondents. As regards the submission made by counsel for respondent Corporation that the advertised vacancies have been filled and thereafter further selection was held in the year 2013 and appointments are made on the post of Conductor pursuant thereto, in our considered view may not be of any substance for the reason that the judgment was pronounced on 9-11- 2011 making distinction amongst those who approached the Court before or after 9-11-2011 is not supported with valid reasoning at the same time without any delay it was questioned by filing respective writ petitions and at the first instance that was disposed of with direction to make representation and after rejection of their representation again with no loss of time approached the Court by filing writ petition which came to be dismissed vide judgment impugned dated 30-7-2012 and that is subject matter of challenge in the batch of appeals and it can safely be recorded that there was no delay on the part of the writ petitioners in approaching to the Court and as regards the laches are concerned, that could not be attributed to the present appellants depriving them from their right of fair consideration and the candidates who have contested their claim immediately after passing of the judgment by the learned Single Judge dated 9-11-2011, if such candidates finds place in the order of merit in our considered view deserves indulgence & their legitimate right of fair consideration & appointment could not be defeated on technicalities and cannot be countenanced by this Court and it will be open for the respondent Corporation to first fill the advertised vacancies in accordance with the criteria which the learned Single Judge has indicated in its order dated 9-11-2011 and is to be made applicable in rem to the candidates who had participated in the selection process and the candidates appointed after 9-11-2011 if are not in the select list against the advertised vacancies it will be open for the Corporation to adjust if permissible by law but the candidates who finds place in the select list and who was not at fault deserves indulgence to seek appointment. At the cost of repetition and to hold that each one of them is entitled to access to justice & the action has to be fair, impartial & good conscience, we would like to further observe that in the process of public employment first & the foremost consideration is the merit which at no cost should sacrifice in filling up the posts amongst candidates/participants & should be obviously after holding fair & impartial process of selection & which is the normal rule of service jurisprudence & is also a requirement & mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. As regards the submission made in respect of such of the candidates who were found to be unfit on account of partial colour blindness & declared ineligible we find from the record that they were declared unfit by the medical board for the post of Driver and not for the post of Conductor. In our considered view they may be medically examined by the Board to be constituted by the Superintendent, SMS Hospital, Jaipur and if found medically fit for the post of Conductor and finds place in the select list, may be considered for appointment to the post of Conductor. In view of what has been discussed by us (supra), the controversy/questions raised for consideration & set forth from the pleadings & the submissions of the parties, all the three questions raised are answered accordingly. Consequently, the appeals succeed & are hereby allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge impugned dated 30.07.2012 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent Corporation is directed to give benefit to the candidates who had participated in the selection process in rem on the principles noticed by the learned Single Judge while disposing of batch of petitions vide judgment dated 09.11.2011 and those who finds place in the select list be considered for appointment against the advertised vacancies with liberty to the Corporation to adjust the candidates who did not find place in the revised select list but given appointment as far as possible & permissible by the law. Compliance be made within two months. No cost." (Emphasis supplied.) 17. Aggrieved against the order of the Division Bench, the Corporation filed SLP (Civil) No. 37928/2016 [RSRTC & Ors. Compliance be made within two months. No cost." (Emphasis supplied.) 17. Aggrieved against the order of the Division Bench, the Corporation filed SLP (Civil) No. 37928/2016 [RSRTC & Ors. v. Vishnu Lal Sen & Ors.] before the Apex Court and the Apex Court on 25.04.2017 decided the SLP and Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos.879-800/2016 and modified the order of the Division Bench dated 27.09.2016 and restricted it to 6032 candidates i.e. the number of Conductors who qualified for the trade test. The order dated 25.04.2017 of the Apex Court is quoted hereunder:- "Leave granted. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the record, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal. However, we modify the impugned judgment and order dated 27.09.2016 passed by the Rajasthan High Court in Special Appeal Writ No.1396 of 2012, and restrict it to 6032 candidates i.e. the number of conductors who qualified for the trade test. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal is disposed of. Application for intervention is dismissed." 18. The Corporation in pursuance of the Apex Court's order dated 25.04.2017 has revised the merit list for the post of Conductor and the present writ petitions have been filed, now challenging the action of the Corporation. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.15286/2017 and SCHEDULE 19. This court would first decide the first category of cases where dispute is with regard to the candidates not finding their place in the revised result and such result/list contains names of 552 candidates including the petitioners. This court is taking S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.15286/2017 [Avinash Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.] as lead case for deciding the first category of cases. 20. The petitioner No.1 has pleaded that after declaring the cutoff marks by the Corporation in the final result dated 23.09.2011 and after the judgment in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.13855/2011) decided on 09.11.2011, the petitioner came to be appointed vide order dated 09.11.2011 and he submitted his joining report on 10.11.2011 before the Depot Manager, Hindaun. The petitioner has pleaded that he was initially appointed on probation & he was given appointment on temporary basis in the pay-scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/- and later on vide order dated 19.01.2017 he was confirmed on the post of Conductor. The petitioner has pleaded that he was initially appointed on probation & he was given appointment on temporary basis in the pay-scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/- and later on vide order dated 19.01.2017 he was confirmed on the post of Conductor. The petitioners have pleaded that the Corporation on 28.08.2017 revised the result after order of the Division Bench in the case of Vishnu Lal Sen (D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.1396/2012) dated 27.09.2016 and order of the Apex Court dated 25.04.2017 in SLP (Civil) No.37928/2016 and in the revised result dated 28.08.2017, a list of 943 selected candidates was issued and further a list of those 552 candidates was issued, who were previously selected but did not find place in merit in the revised result. The petitioners have pleaded that several irregularities have been committed by the respondents even in preparing the revised result. 21. The petitioners have pleaded in the writ petitions that they all have passed the written examination and further got the required marks in the trade test and after being found fully meritorious, they came to be appointed. The petitioners have pleaded that the appointment which was given to the petitioners has been regularized, as such, they are confirmed employees and after working from last several years, their services cannot be terminated in arbitrary manner. 22. The petitioners have pleaded that the Division Bench even while deciding D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.1396/2012 [Vishnu Lal Sen & Ors. v. RSRTC & Ors.] had clearly observed that those candidates who find place in the select list can be considered for appointment against the advertised vacancies but the Corporation was directed to adjust the candidates who did not find place in the revised select list but were given appointment as far as possible and permissible by law. The petitioners have pleaded that the employer-Corporation had filed SLP against order of the Division Bench and in fact endeavour of the Corporation was to protect the appointments given to the petitioners and now the employer-Corporation cannot take a U-Turn and remove them from service. 23. The petitioners have pleaded that several posts are still available with the Corporation and there was no occasion to terminate the services of the petitioners even if they have to give appointment to the candidates who now find place in the revised select list. 23. The petitioners have pleaded that several posts are still available with the Corporation and there was no occasion to terminate the services of the petitioners even if they have to give appointment to the candidates who now find place in the revised select list. The petitioners have pleaded that they have not secured appointment by misrepresentation or playing fraud with the employer and if various directions have been given from time to time by the Courts, the same cannot result into depriving them from their right of employment. The petitioners have pleaded that the employer has acted in an arbitrary manner in taking a decision to remove them from service without first making an effort to retain them and later on selected candidates, as per the revised result, could be adjusted against the post available with the Corporation. 24. The respondent-Corporation has submitted before this court that they have been following the directions given by this court in several round of litigation. The Corporation was bound to implement the order passed by the Division Bench, which was later on modified by the Apex Court to restrict it to 6032 candidates who had appeared in the trade test. The Corporation submitted that the candidates who have secured maximum marks in the written examination and trade test and find their names in the merit list, cannot be allowed to suffer by not according them appointment. The Corporation has submitted that the directions have already been given by the Division Bench that merit alone is the criterion for making appointment even if a candidate has not approached the court, the appointment cannot be denied to such candidate. The Corporation has also submitted that it is facing great financial crunch and it does not have enough funds even to pay salary, etc. to the existing staff and the Corporation cannot be burdened with extra man-power by allowing the petitioners to continue in service and further to give appointment as per the revised result. 25. Counsel for the petitioners have made following submission in support of their claim:- (i) The petitioners are not at fault and since they all are confirmed employees, their services cannot be terminated. 25. Counsel for the petitioners have made following submission in support of their claim:- (i) The petitioners are not at fault and since they all are confirmed employees, their services cannot be terminated. (ii) The petitioners had eligibility and merit as they possessed qualification prescribed, as per the advertisement and eventually the petitioners came to be given appointment on the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement by the Corporation. (iii) The criteria which was fixed by the employer-Corporation was known to all the candidates and after participating in the selection process and remaining unsuccessful, the entire litigation was initiated by the candidates and as such the unsuccessful candidates in the written examination, have put the entire selection in jeopardy resulting into termination of the services of the petitioners. (iv) The Division Bench in the case of Vishu Lal Sen (D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1396/2012) has already directed the Corporation to adjust the present petitioners and not to remove them from service. The Corporation has not followed the said dictum. (v) The petitioners were not party in the litigation in the case of Vishnu Lal Sen (supra) and as such the petitioners cannot be made to suffer on account of passing the order by the court where necessary parties were not brought on record. (vi) The Corporation has enough vacancies against which the petitioners can be adjusted and the candidates who now find place in the revised result/merit list, can also be offered appointment and as such there is no occasion to terminate the services of the petitioners. (vii) The candidates who are now desirous of getting appointment on the basis of revised result, have already joined services elsewhere and very few people are left out who can said to be interested in joining the job as the litigation has been pending since last eight years in various courts. (viii) The Corporation has not followed the directions given by the Principal Seat of this Court at Jodhpur in Narpat Dan's case (supra) and there are several candidates who are not to be continued in appointment, as per the directions given in Narpat Dan's case. 26. (viii) The Corporation has not followed the directions given by the Principal Seat of this Court at Jodhpur in Narpat Dan's case (supra) and there are several candidates who are not to be continued in appointment, as per the directions given in Narpat Dan's case. 26. Counsel for the respondents has argued that the entire controversy has been settled by the Division Bench in the case of Vishu Lal Sen (D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.1396/2012) and no case is made out in favour of the petitioners to get relief, as they did not find place in revised merit list. 27. Counsel has submitted that there are no mandatory directions issued by the Division Bench to allow the petitioners to continue and not to terminate their services and the Division Bench had observed that if it is permissible in law, the persons could be considered for continuing in service. 28. Counsel submitted that the Corporation's selection process has not been found to be faulty and as such the employer-Corporation is within its prerogative, as per the decision given by this Court, to prepare the merit list and to give appointment to the most meritorious candidates. Counsel has submitted that all issues with regard to cut-off marks or following the dictum in Narpat Dan's case has been taken into account and no violation has been made by them. 29. Counsel for the respondents-Corporation submitted that now issue of possessing HMV Driving License for the post of Conductor has been settled and further the issue of passing minimum marks in the trade test has further been settled by this court and a formula evolved for awarding marks in trade test, is being followed uniformly. The Corporation has now prepared the list of candidates without insisting for possessing Driving License and acquiring the minimum marks in trade test and they need to be given appointment and zone of consideration, as fixed by the Apex Court, has been restricted to 6032 candidates. The Corporation has re-drawn the cut-off marks for each category and accordingly 943 candidates find their place in the order of merit and they alone can be considered for appointment. 30. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 31. This court finds that appointments of the petitioners have been made by the Corporation from the year 2011 to 2013. The Corporation has re-drawn the cut-off marks for each category and accordingly 943 candidates find their place in the order of merit and they alone can be considered for appointment. 30. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 31. This court finds that appointments of the petitioners have been made by the Corporation from the year 2011 to 2013. The Corporation has further confirmed the employees who were appointed during pendency of various rounds of litigation. The Corporation has further granted regular pay-scale to all those Conductors who were initially appointed on temporary basis which was followed by confirmation orders issued from time to time. 32. This court finds that in various litigation which came before this court, the fact of appointment of persons during pendency of the writ petition and further their continuance, has been brought into notice of this court. This court finds that in previous round of litigation, at no point of time, it was observed by the courts that the appointments which have already been made needs to be disturbed or such appointments are bad for any reason. This court finds that the petitioners who have got the employment have never made any misrepresentation or obtained the employment by fraud/mischief. This court finds that there has been no mistake on the part of the petitioners and after their appointment if due to interpretation and intervention by the court, are now found to be wrongful or irregular, the benefits to such candidates who have got appointment and put long length of service, the court needs to consider these facts and right of such candidates, cannot be infringed by taking away their employment. 33. The maxim of fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant (fraud and justice never dwell together) has not lost its temper and it continues to dwell in spirit and body of service law jurisprudence. The Apex Court in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh & Ors v. State of Chhatisgarh & Ors. reported in, (2013) 14 SCC 494 has laid down the principles that those candidates who have undertaken training and have worked for more than three years, termination of their services will affect their careers and as such equitable considerations to selected candidates, have been extended by the Apex Court. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:- "21. reported in, (2013) 14 SCC 494 has laid down the principles that those candidates who have undertaken training and have worked for more than three years, termination of their services will affect their careers and as such equitable considerations to selected candidates, have been extended by the Apex Court. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:- "21. Shri Rao would submit that the case of these appellants requires sympathetic consideration by this Court, since the appointment of appellants on the basis of a properly conducted competitive examination cannot be said to have been affected by any malpractice or other extraneous consideration or misrepresentation on their part. The ouster of 26 appellants from service after having successfully undergone training and serving the respondent-State for more than three years now would cause undue hardship to them and ruin their lives and careers. He would further submit that an irretrievable loss in terms of life and livelihood would be caused to eight appellants amongst them who have now become over aged and have also lost the opportunity to appear in the subsequent examinations. He would place reliance upon the decision of this Court in Rajesh Kumar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. wherein this Court has directed the respondent-State to re-evaluate the answer scripts on the basis of correct model answers key and sympathetically considered the case of such candidates who, after having being appointed in terms of erroneous evaluation and having served the State for considerable length of time, would not find place in the fresh merit list drawn after re-evaluation and directed the respondent-State against ousting of such candidates and further that they be placed at the bottom of the fresh merit list. 22. The pristine maxim of fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant (fraud and justice never dwell together) has never lost its temper over the centuries and it continues to dwell in spirit and body of service law jurisprudence. It is settled law that no legal right in respect of appointment to a said post vests in a candidate who has obtained the employment by fraud, mischief, misrepresentation or malafide. It is also settled law that a person appointed erroneously on a post must not reap the benefits of wrongful appointment jeopardizing the interests of the meritorious and worthy candidates. It is also settled law that a person appointed erroneously on a post must not reap the benefits of wrongful appointment jeopardizing the interests of the meritorious and worthy candidates. However, in cases where a wrongful or irregular appointment is made without any mistake on the part of the appointee and upon discovery of such error or irregularity the appointee is terminated, this Court has taken a sympathetic view in the light of various factors including bonafide of the candidate in such appointment and length of service of the candidate after such appointment. 23. In Girjesh Shrivastava and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors. the High Court had invalidated the rule prescribing selection procedure which awarded grace marks of 25 per cent and age relaxation to the candidates with three years' long non-formal teaching experiences as a consequence of which several candidates appointed as teachers at the formal education institutions under the said rule stood ousted. This Court while concurring with the observations made by the High Court kept in view that upon rectification of irregularities in appointment after a considerable length of time an order for cancellation of appointment would severely affect economic security of a number of candidates and observed as follows: "31. ...Most of them were earlier teaching in Non-formal education centers, from where they had resigned to apply in response to the advertisement. They had left their previous employment in view of the fact that for their three year long teaching experiences, the interview process in the present selection was awarding them grace marks of 25 per cent. It had also given them a relaxation of 8 years with respect to their age. Now, if they lose their jobs as a result of High Court's order, they would be effectively unemployed as they cannot even revert to their earlier jobs in the Non-formal education centers, which have been abolished since then. This would severely affect the economic security of many families. Most of them are between the age group of 35-45 years, and the prospects for them of finding another job are rather dim. Some of them were in fact awaiting their salary rise at the time of quashing of their appointment by the High Court." Therefore, mindful of the aforesaid circumstances this Court directed non-ouster of the candidates appointed under the invalidated rule. 24. In Union of India (UOI) and Anr. Some of them were in fact awaiting their salary rise at the time of quashing of their appointment by the High Court." Therefore, mindful of the aforesaid circumstances this Court directed non-ouster of the candidates appointed under the invalidated rule. 24. In Union of India (UOI) and Anr. v. Narendra Singh this Court considered the age of the employee who was erroneously promoted and the duration of his service on the promoted post and the factor of retiring from service on attaining the age of superannuation and observed as follows: "35. The last prayer on behalf of respondent, however, needs to be sympathetically considered. The respondent is holding the post of Senior Accountant (Functional) since last seventeen years. He is on the verge of retirement, so much so, that only few days have remained. He will be reaching at the age of superannuation by the end of this month i.e. December 31, 2007. In our view, therefore, it would not be appropriate now to revert the respondent to the post of Accountant for very short period. We, therefore, direct the appellants to continue the respondent as Senior Accountant (Functional) till he reaches the age of superannuation i.e. upto December 31, 2007. At the same time, we hold that since the action of the Authorities was in accordance with Statutory Rules, an order passed by the Deputy Accountant-General canceling promotion of the respondent and reverting him to his substantive post of Accountant was legal and valid and the respondent could not have been promoted as Senior Accountant, he would be deemed to have retired as Accountant and not as Senior Accountant (Functional) and his pensionary and retiral benefits would be fixed accordingly by treating him as Accountant all through out. 36. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. Though the respondent is allowed to continue on the post of Senior Accountant (Functional) till he reaches the age of retirement i.e. December 31, 2007 and salary paid to him in that capacity will not be recovered, his retiral benefits will be fixed not as Senior Accountant (Functional) but as Accountant. In the facts and circumstances of case, there shall be no order as to costs." 25. This Court in Gujarat State Deputy Executive Engineers' Association v. State of Gujarat and Ors. In the facts and circumstances of case, there shall be no order as to costs." 25. This Court in Gujarat State Deputy Executive Engineers' Association v. State of Gujarat and Ors. although recorded a finding that appointments given under the 'wait list' were not in accordance with law but refused to set aside such appointments in view of length of service (five years and more). 26. In Buddhi Nath Chaudhary and Ors. v. Akhil Kumar and Ors. even though the appointments were held to be improper, this Court did not disturb the appointments on the ground that the incumbents had worked for several years and had gained experience and observed: "We have extended equitable considerations to such selected candidates who have worked on the posts for a long period." 27. Admittedly, in the instant case the error committed by the respondent-Board in the matter of evaluation of the answer scripts could not be attributed to the appellants as they have neither been found to have committed any fraud or misrepresentation in being appointed qua the first merit list nor has the preparation of the erroneous model answer key or the specious result contributed to them. Had the contrary been the case, it would have justified their ouster upon re-evaluation and deprived them of any sympathy from this Court irrespective of their length of service. 28. In our considered view, the appellants have successfully undergone training and are efficiently serving the respondent-State for more than three years and undoubtedly their termination would not only impinge upon the economic security of the appellants and their dependants but also adversely affect their careers. This would be highly unjust and grossly unfair to the appellants who are innocent appointees of an erroneous evaluation of the answer scripts. However, their continuation in service should neither give any unfair advantage to the appellants nor cause undue prejudice to the candidates selected qua the revised merit list. 29. Accordingly, we direct the respondent-State to appoint the appellants in the revised merit list placing them at the bottom of the said list. The candidates who have crossed the minimum statutory age for appointment shall be accommodated with suitable age relaxation. 30. We clarify that their appointment shall for all intents and purpose be fresh appointment which would not entitle the appellants to any back wages, seniority or any other benefit based on their earlier appointment. 31. The candidates who have crossed the minimum statutory age for appointment shall be accommodated with suitable age relaxation. 30. We clarify that their appointment shall for all intents and purpose be fresh appointment which would not entitle the appellants to any back wages, seniority or any other benefit based on their earlier appointment. 31. The order passed by the High Court shall stand modified to the above extent. Appeals disposed of. 32. There shall be no order as to costs." 34. The Apex Court has decided in the case of Richal & Others etc. etc. v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors. etc. etc. reported in 2018 (4) SCJ 641 in respect of a dispute of the School Lecturer Examination conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission where result was revised on several occasions due to some disputed question and publication of answer key. The Apex Court having noted the fact of selections already made on the basis of result prepared at one point of time, did not give any direction to revise merit list of such candidates and for the remaining candidates, the revised result, for the purpose of appointment, was to be declared by the RPSC. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:- "26. In the affidavit filed by the Commission it is mentioned that the result has been revised of only 311 appellants who are before this Court. We are of the view that key answers having been corrected, merit of all the candidates except those who have already been selected needs to be redetermined. In our order dated 16.01.2018 it is mentioned that this exercise shall not affect those who have already been selected. We, thus, are of the view that the Commission should revise the entire result of all the candidates except those who have been selected on the basis of the report of Expert Committee and publish revise result of all the candidates. When the key answers are correct of the candidates who appeared in the examination, they are entitled for revision of their result, since, fault does not lie with the candidates but lies with the examination body. When the key answers are correct of the candidates who appeared in the examination, they are entitled for revision of their result, since, fault does not lie with the candidates but lies with the examination body. It shall not be equitable to not extend the benefit to those candidates who have not come to the Court being satisfied with the steps taken by the Commission and its earlier Expert Committee which was given the task of revising the key answers. 27. In view of the foregoing discussions, we dispose of these appeals with the following directions: (1) The Rajasthan Public Service Commission is directed to revise the result of all the candidates including all the appellants on the basis of Report of the Expert Committee constituted in pursuance of our order dated 16.01.2018 and publish the revised result. (2) While carrying the above exercise the Commission need not revise the result of all those candidates whose names were included in the Select List earlier published. We having already pointed out that the appointments shall not be affected by this exercise, there is no necessity to revise their result. Thus, this exercise shall be undertaken excluding all the candidates who are included in the Select List. (3) The Commission shall also publish the cut off marks of the last selected candidates in the respective categories who were included in the Select List on the basis of which appointments have been made by the Commission. (4) On the basis of the revised result, those candidates who achieve equal or more marks in their respective categories shall be offered appointments against 1045 vacancies as has been mentioned by the Commission in paragraph 7 of the affidavit, noted above. (5) The entire exercise of revising the result and making recommendations for appointments shall be completed by the Commission within a period of three months from today. The State shall take necessary consequential steps thereafter." 35. The Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar and Others v. State of Bihar and Others reported in, (2013) 4 SCC 690 has held that if the candidate did not contribute to preparation of erroneous answer key nor distorted result nor committed any fraud or malpractice in examination process, such candidate was required to be protected and the other candidates who came in merit, as per the revised result, were required to be given appointment. The relevant extract of the judgment is reported hereunder:- "19. The submissions made by Mr. Rao are not without merit. Given the nature of the defect in the answer key the most natural and logical way of correcting the evaluation of the scripts was to correct the key and get the answer scripts reevaluated on the basis thereof. There was, in the circumstances, no compelling reason for directing a fresh examination to be held by the Commission especially when there was no allegation about any malpractice, fraud or corrupt motives that could possibly vitiate the earlier examination to call for a fresh attempt by all concerned. The process of reevaluation of the answer scripts with reference to the correct key will in addition be less expensive apart from being quicker. The process would also not give any unfair advantage to anyone of the candidates on account of the time lag between the examination earlier held and the one that may have been held pursuant to the direction of the High Court. Suffice it to say that the reevaluation was and is a better option, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 20. That brings us to the submission by Mr. Rao that while reevaluation is a good option not only to do justice to those who may have suffered on account of an erroneous key being applied to the process but also to writ petitioners-respondents 6 to 18 in the matter of allocating to them their rightful place in the merit list. Such evaluation need not necessarily result in the ouster of the appellants should they be found to fall below the 'cut off' mark in the merit list. Mr. Rao gave two reasons in support of that submission. Firstly, he contended that the appellants are not responsible for the error committed by the parties in the matter of evaluation of the answer scripts. The position may have been different if the appellants were guilty of any fraud, misrepresentation or malpractice that would have deprived them of any sympathy from the Court or justified their ouster. Secondly, he contended that the appellants have served the State efficiently and without any complaint for nearly seven years now and most of them, if not all, may have become overage for fresh recruitment within the State or outside the State. Secondly, he contended that the appellants have served the State efficiently and without any complaint for nearly seven years now and most of them, if not all, may have become overage for fresh recruitment within the State or outside the State. They have also lost the opportunity to appear in the subsequent examination held in the year 2007. Their ouster from service after their employment on the basis of a properly conducted competitive examination not itself affected by any malpractice or other extraneous consideration or misrepresentation will cause hardship to them and ruin their careers and lives. The experience gained by these appellants over the years would also, according to Mr. Rao, go waste as the State will not have the advantage of using valuable human resource which was found useful in the service of the people of the State of Bihar for a long time. Mr. Rao, therefore, prayed for a suitable direction that while reevaluation can determine the inter-se position of the writ petitioners and the appellants in these appeals, the result of such re-evaluation may not lead to their ouster from service, if they fell below the cut off line. 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 and inexorable consequence of such a reevaluation. 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 entitled 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. 22. Such of those candidates as may be ultimately found to be entitled 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. 22. In the result, we allow these appeals, set aside the order passed by the High Court and direct that: 22.1 Answer scripts of candidates appearing in 'A' series of competition examination held pursuant to advertisement No. 1406 of 2006 shall be got reevaluated on the basis of a correct key prepared on the basis of the report of Dr. (Prof.) CN Sinha and Prof. KSP Singh and the observations made in the body of this order and a fresh merit list drawn up on that basis. 22.2 Candidates who figure in the merit list but have not been appointed shall be offered appointments in their favour. Such candidates would earn their seniority from the date the appellants were first appointed in accordance with their merit position but without any back wages or other benefit whatsoever. 22.3 In case writ petitioners-respondent nos. 6 to 18 also figure in the merit list after re-evaluation of the answer scripts, their appointments shall relate back to the date when the appellants were first appointed with continuity of service to them for purpose of seniority but without any back wages or other incidental benefits. 22.4 Such of the appellants as do not make the grade after reevaluation shall not be ousted from service, but shall figure at the bottom of the list of selected candidates based on the first selection in terms of advertisement No.1406 of 2006 and the second selection held pursuant to advertisement No.1906 of 2006. 22.5 Needful shall be done by the respondents - State and the Staff Selection Commission expeditiously but not later than three months from the date a copy of this order is made available to them. 23. Parties are directed to bear their own costs." 36. 22.5 Needful shall be done by the respondents - State and the Staff Selection Commission expeditiously but not later than three months from the date a copy of this order is made available to them. 23. Parties are directed to bear their own costs." 36. This court finds that the petitioners who were appointed at one point of time, as per the criterion which was published in the advertisement, have further been confirmed in service, their discontinuance would not be just and proper and the Corporation in the garb of implementing the orders issued by the Division Bench in the case of Vishnu Lal Sen (supra) and the order subsequently passed by the Apex Court in SLP, cannot terminate the services of such employees. This court finds that the Division Bench in the case of Vishnu Lal Sen (supra) has also made observations that those candidates who have been appointed and who may ultimately not be coming in the merit list can be adjusted as far as possible & permissible by the law. 37. This court following the judgments of the Apex Court, finds that the adjustment of the petitioners and other candidates who have been appointed way back in 2011 onwards, need to be protected by allowing them to continue in service. This court finds that the experience gained by these persons from last 7-8 years can also not be lost sight of and it will be a sheer wastage of public exchequer to terminate services of these employees at this point of time. 38. This court finds that the employer-Corporation in the present case has got several directions from the court from time to time and it itself has not been able to make up its mind as to in what manner the final selections are to be concluded. Nevertheless, the fact remains that those candidates who at one point of time were having the requisite qualification and were considered eligible for appointment, no harsh action of termination of their services would be justified. 39. This court is conscious of the fact that the Division Bench in the case of Vishnu Lal Sen (supra) has made the strong observations that merit should be the only criterion on which selection is to be made in public employment. 39. This court is conscious of the fact that the Division Bench in the case of Vishnu Lal Sen (supra) has made the strong observations that merit should be the only criterion on which selection is to be made in public employment. This Court is further conscious of this fact that the Division Bench has directed to give benefit to the candidates who had participated in the selection process in rem on the terms enumerated by the Single Bench in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) dated 09.11.2011. The Apex Court has restricted the consideration to 6032 candidates who had passed the trade test. 40. The Corporation while considering the claims of the candidates ought to have kept in mind the fact of continuance of the candidates who have been appointed long back and who have put in long length of service and have gained experience. 41. The action of the Corporation in taking decision to remove 552 candidates who do not fall in the revised merit list and they stood selected earlier, cannot be said to be in consonance with the law. 42. This court finds the revised result of 943 candidates who came to be selected now, obviously takes out the job of 552 candidates. In the opinion of this court, such action of the respondents cannot be approved. 43. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that now entire controversy has been settled by virtue of decision passed by the Division Bench in the case of Vishnu Lal Sen (supra) and as such Corporation was bound to issue revised result, this court finds that the Division Bench itself while disposing of the special appeals had made the observations and further permitted the Corporation to adjust the persons who are already appointed, as far as possible & permissible under the law. The plea of the learned counsel for the respondents that there was no mandatory directions by the Division Bench, this court finds such submission to be without any substance. Once the Division Bench was conscious and alive to the problem of continuance of the persons, who were appointed, the Corporation was under the bounden duty to take care of the services rendered by such persons from last several years. 44. Once the Division Bench was conscious and alive to the problem of continuance of the persons, who were appointed, the Corporation was under the bounden duty to take care of the services rendered by such persons from last several years. 44. The submissions of learned counsel for the respondents that no fault has been found in the selection conducted by the employer, this Court finds that at two stages, the Corporation itself volunteered and agreed for certain terms and conditions which were initially prescribed while undertaking the exercise of making recruitment. This Court on two occasions passed the agreed order and imposition of condition of possessing HMV driving license and further possessing minimum passing marks in trade test, were done away with at the instance of the Corporation, as it agreed before this Court in previous rounds of litigation. 45. This Court in the present litigation, is in no way giving any finding or making its comments in respect of the judgment being already given but the argument has been dealt with only for the reason that Corporation has pleaded that no fault was ever found in the selection process undertaken by them. 46. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the Corporation cannot be fastened with liability to take more persons by continuing the persons who are already working and further to give appointment to those who come in the revised select list, this Court finds that it is settled law that employer cannot appoint the persons beyond the number of vacancies advertised and Courts cannot give direction to fill up the particular posts. In the present case the plea of the learned counsel for the respondents that the employer-Corporation is in a bad financial condition and no extra burden can be thrust upon it, this Court finds that the petitioners and other similarly situated persons who have already been selected and appointed, need to be protected and for the remaining posts, the persons who come in the merit in their respective category, can be considered for appointment against the total number of vacancies advertised by the Corporation. This Court in no way has any intention to create more posts or adjust the candidates in future vacancies. The select list is meant to be operated only for the purpose of appointment against the vacancies advertised. This Court in no way has any intention to create more posts or adjust the candidates in future vacancies. The select list is meant to be operated only for the purpose of appointment against the vacancies advertised. The select list cannot become a perennial source for appointment for future vacancies. 47. This Court finds that the Corporation acted in illegal manner in taking decision to remove the candidates who have already been appointed and confirmed. The Corporation has also been at fault in preparing the list of 552 candidates who are not found in merit list in the revised result and eventually their services would be terminated. 48. Accordingly, the present batch of writ petitions (Category-I), mentioned in the annexed Schedule, needs to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The action of the respondents in terminating the services of the candidates who have been regularly appointed, is declared bad and illegal and candidates who have already been appointed will be permitted to continue in service. The impugned list of 552 candidates of revised result is declared illegal and same is set aside. 49. The Corporation is directed to fill remaining 391 vacancies (943 - 552), as per the revised result/list of selected candidates, as prepared by the Corporation. S.B.Civil Writ Petition Nos.22940/2017, 1040/2018, 3960/2018 AND 3186/2018 50. The petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions have sought directions to seek appointment on the post of Conductor in pursuance of the revised list of the candidates selected by the Corporation on 28/08/2017. 51. The petitioners have pleaded that they secured minimum cut-off marks in written examination as well as theory test. The petitioners have pleaded that there were series of litigation in the High Court and Apex Court. After decision rendered by the Division Bench in the case of Vishnu Lal Sen (supra) and the order of the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 37928/2016 dated 25.04.2017, the revised list as well as revised cut-off marks, based on the written examination marks plus 2.5 times of theory marks in trade test, were issued by the RSRTC on 28.08.2017, all the petitioners have been finding their names in the select list but however, the respondents are not giving them appointment. 52. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there was no reason to deprive the petitioners from appointment as the controversy has finally been settled up to the Apex Court. 53. 52. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there was no reason to deprive the petitioners from appointment as the controversy has finally been settled up to the Apex Court. 53. This Court in the connected batch of writ petitions (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.15286/2017) decided the controversy by giving a direction to the Corporation to protect the services of the candidates who have already been appointed and list of 552 candidates who eventually will be removed from service, has not been approved by this Court. The Corporation has been permitted to protect the services of such employees who have already been appointed and have been further given direction to give appointment against the total advertised vacancies. 54. Consequently, the present batch of writ petitions is disposed of with the same directions which have been given in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.15286/2017. S.B.Civil Writ Petition Nos.23381/2017, 1882/2018 and 2668/2018 AND 6790/2018 55. The petitioners in this category of cases have sought a prayer that action of the Corporation in not giving appointment to the petitioners while continuing less meritorious candidates, as per the initial result and as per the revised result dated 28.08.2017 may be declared illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners have further prayed that they may be considered for appointment on the post of Conductor with all consequential benefits. 56. The petitioners after giving details of previous litigation, have come before this Court by making a grievance that the Corporation is continuing less meritorious candidates in service, as per initial result as well as the revised result and such continuance of less meritorious persons without giving appointment to the petitioners is unjust enrichment of less meritorious candidates. The petitioners have pleaded that if they had not been deprived from selection on the ground of revised cut-off in the written examination or on the ground of imposing minimum 30 marks in trade test in the final result without being the condition in the advertisement or on account of denying benefit of redetermination of trade test marks, the petitioners would have made place in the merit list. 57. Counsel for the petitioners Mr.Vigyan Shah has submitted that some of the petitioners in the instant petitions had filed special appeal also and the same came to be decided along with the case of Vishnu Lal Sen (supra). 57. Counsel for the petitioners Mr.Vigyan Shah has submitted that some of the petitioners in the instant petitions had filed special appeal also and the same came to be decided along with the case of Vishnu Lal Sen (supra). Counsel has submitted that the revised result is not as per the directions of the Division Bench and cut-off marks in the written examination have not been properly determined. 58. Counsel has submitted that the Corporation has even not followed judgment passed by this Court from time to time and as such the petitioners are illegally deprived from appointment. 59. I have gone through the entire pleadings made in the petitions and this Court finds that the petitioners do not have any case or issue which needs to be adjudicated by taking into account the submissions, made during the course of hearing. 60. This Court has already found that the Corporation has to prepare the merit list by not insisting on conditions of possessing HMV Driving License and further the formula evolved for trade test has also to be kept in mind. The employer-Corporation has carried out the exercise and now the list of 552 candidates who are not finding place in the revised merit list and list of 943 candidates of final select list has been prepared. The Corporation has now declared separate cut-off marks for each category as per revised result and accordingly it intends to fill the post. The issue with regard to directions given in the cases of Narpat Dan (supra), Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) and Ramesh Chand (supra) cannot be revived in the present batch of writ petitions. The petitioners if do not find place in the revised select/merit list as they have not secured the requisite marks, no fault can be found with the Corporation and the prayer made by the petitioners cannot be granted by this Court. 61. Consequently, the present batch of writ petitions is wholly devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.19102/2017 62. The petitioner, in the instant case, has sought mandamus to allow him to continue on the post of Conductor, as per his appointment dated 27.01.2017. The petitioner has further prayed to set aside the revised result of 552 candidates who were previously selected for the post of Conductor but going out of merit in the revised result - 552 candidates. 63. The petitioner has further prayed to set aside the revised result of 552 candidates who were previously selected for the post of Conductor but going out of merit in the revised result - 552 candidates. 63. The facts of the case are that the petitioner had participated in the process of selection on the post of Conductor and he came to be appointed vide order dated 31.01.2012. 64. The services of the petitioners were terminated vide order dated 27.05.2013, as the petitioner was not to be given benefit of the judgment of Prem Prakash Sharma [S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.13855/2011] decided on 09.11.2011. The petitioner feeling aggrieved against the termination order dated 27.05.2013 filed S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.9185/2013 and the same came to be dismissed by the Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.05.2013. 65. The petitioner felt aggrieved against dismissal of the writ petition, filed D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.718/2013 and that too was dismissed vide order dated 24.09.2013. 66. The petitioner felt aggrieved against the order passed by the Single Bench and Division Bench filed SLP No.35934/2013 before the Apex Court and the same came to be allowed vide order dated 21.04.2016. 67. The petitioner when not given appointment after decision of the Apex Court filed contempt petition before the Apex Court and the employer-Corporation offered appointment to the petitioner vide order dated 27.01.2017 subject to clarification application to be filed by the employer. 68. The petitioner joined in pursuance of the appointment order dated 27.01.2017 on 30.01.2017. The petitioner now feels aggrieved against the list which has been published containing 552 names including the petitioner, as he is not said to be in the revised merit list. 69. The petitioner has pleaded that the order of Division Bench once has set aside by the Apex Court and the order of termination has been set aside, the case of the petitioner cannot be governed by the ratio laid down in the case of Vishnu Lal Sen (supra). 70. The court in the connected batch of writ petitions (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.15286/2017) has already taken a view that the Corporation has committed illegality in taking decision to remove the persons who have already been appointed and list of 552 candidates has not been approved by this Court as being faulty. 71. Consequently, the present writ petition also needs to be allowed and is hereby allowed. 71. Consequently, the present writ petition also needs to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The action of the respondents of terminating the services of the petitioner is declared bad and illegal and the petitioner is also governed by the directions issued by this court in the S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.15286/2017 and connected cases.