JUDGMENT : AJAY RASTOGI, J. 1. The respondent-applicant initially approached this court way back in the year 1997 with the grievance that he has been arbitrarily denied from being considered for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III despite this fact remain in-disputed that the marks secured in Senior Secondary (Vocational) which has been held to be equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic) if taken note of for the purpose of determination of merit, he has secured the higher percentage of marks than the last person who has been appointed as Teacher Gr. III in the Zila Parishad, Barmer in his respective category. The last person secured 71.81 marks was appointed and at the same time the present respondent/applicant secured 72.7 marks on the basis of Senior Secondary qualification is still knocking the doors of this court with the grievance that at least he may be considered eligible for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III, although at this belated stage. 2. The brief facts of the case put forward by the petitioner while approaching this court in the year 1997 are that the post of Teacher Gr. III included in the Schedule appended to the Rajasthan Panchayati Samitis & Zila Parishads Rules, 1959 which was later on replaced by the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 came to be advertised vide advertisement No. 9/96 dated 01.10.1996 by the Zila Parishad, Barmer and 600 approx. vacancies of Teacher Gr. III were advertised. 3. The writ petitioner was holding the qualification of Secondary with BSTC & Senior Secondary (Vocational), although earlier there was a consensus that Senior Secondary (Vocational) be considered to be equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic) for the purpose of appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. III but the Division Bench of this court held Senior Secondary (Vocational) be equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic) and the view was affirmed by the Apex Court and it was held that Senior Secondary (Vocational) is equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic) for the purpose of appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. III but the Division Bench of this court held Senior Secondary (Vocational) be equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic) and the view was affirmed by the Apex Court and it was held that Senior Secondary (Vocational) is equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic) for the purpose of appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. III under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 and indisputably, the Zila Parishad, Barmer prepared the merit list of the candidates who have participated in the selection process based on the marks secured by them in Senior Secondary (Vocational)/Senior Secondary (Academic) with their training of BSTC or B.Ed., as the case may be and considered them for appointment according to order of their merit. 4. It is informed to this court that 589 approx. candidates were appointed in Zila Parishad, Barmer as Teacher Gr. III in reference to the advertisement No. 9/96 dated 01.10.1996 on the basis of merit list which was prepared on the basis of marks secured by the candidates in Senior Secondary (Vocational)/Senior Secondary (Academic) which is considered to be equivalent with training and indisputably as per the cut-off marks in the respective category of the respondent-petitioner, he too could be considered for appointment as he secured 72.7 marks but unfortunately he was denied appointment at the relevant point of time and since this question, could have finally emerged later about the fate as to whether Senior Secondary (Vocational) could be considered equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic), which was coming as a hurdle in depriving him from being considered for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III, he approached this court by filing CWP No. 3328/1997. 5. After fifteen years of filing of the writ petition, the writ petition preferred by the respondent herein was decided by the ld. Single Judge vide order dated 23.07.2013 with direction to the State of Rajasthan to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III on the basis of his qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) being equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic) and he may be entitled for notional benefits from the date his immediate junior is granted such benefits. This court considers it appropriate to quote the extract of the directions issued by the ld. III on the basis of his qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) being equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic) and he may be entitled for notional benefits from the date his immediate junior is granted such benefits. This court considers it appropriate to quote the extract of the directions issued by the ld. Single Judge of this court while disposing of the writ petition vide order dated 23.07.2013, which read ad infra:- "In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III and if found suitable grant him appointment by treating the qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) with Brij Course equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic). The petitioner shall be entitled for notional benefits from the date his immediate junior is granted such benefit. Compliance of the judgment be made within a period of three months from the date copy of this order is produced before the respondents." 6. It may be relevant to note that only issue raised and decided by the ld. Single Judge was as to whether the qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) could be considered to be equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic) which makes him eligible for being considered for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III and the State Government has not disputed that if his qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) is considered to be equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic), still he did not fall in the zone of consideration for being considered for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III and the fact was that cut-off marks in the respective category of the respondent-writ petitioner was 71.81 and he secured 72.7 marks and being eligible for appointment in ordinary course of business, he could have been considered for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III but to his hard luck, still when not considered for appointment, he was advised to file contempt petition being Civil Contempt Petition No. 125/2014 and after the notices being served of the Contempt Petition, respondents filed their reply to justify about the action being taken for which he was not entitled for being considered for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III but after seeking advice he further filed Misc. Application No. 235/2016 seeking clarification from the ld. III but after seeking advice he further filed Misc. Application No. 235/2016 seeking clarification from the ld. Single Judge that in the Zila Parishad, Barmer, appointments were made on the basis of the marks secured by the candidates in Senior Secondary examination and once this fact stands established that he secured 72.7 marks on the basis of Senior Secondary examination and the cut-off marks being 71.81, there appears no reason which could preclude him from being considered for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III at least in the Zila Parishad, Barmer after he being finally selected in reference to the advertisement No. 9/96 dated 01.10.1996. 7. On the said Misc. Application filed by the respondent-writ petitioner, the State and its authorities were called upon & filed their reply and taking note of the material on record, the ld. Single Judge in the given facts & circumstances considered it appropriate to clarify that as he secured 72.7 marks and when the cut-off marks was 71.81 and the qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) possessed by him has been considered to be equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic), if any candidate lower to him in merit has been considered, there appears no reason why he has been deprived from being considered for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III. Although, there were certain other directions made by the ld. Single Judge under its order impugned dated 07.09.2016 about rational decision being taken which has to be uniformly applied in all the districts of Rajasthan being regulated by a common scheme of Rules, 1996 and maintaining uniformity in the selection process, certainly it may curbed the arbitrariness of the authorities while holding selection process for the post of Teacher Gr. III in their respective Districts. The clarification was made by the ld. Single Judge while disposing of the Misc. Application vide order dated 07.09.2016 is the subject matter of challenge in the instant special appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan. 8. Mr. S.K. Gupta, Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant-State submits that although the facts referred to are not disputed that if the merit list, as prepared by the Zila Parishad, Barmer, is considered for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. III, indisputably, the respondent-writ petitioner has secured higher marks than the cut-off marks and could have been considered for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III, indisputably, the respondent-writ petitioner has secured higher marks than the cut-off marks and could have been considered for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III in reference to the advertisement No. 9/96 dated 01.10.1996 and this fact has also not been disputed that against 600 approx. vacancies of Teacher Gr. III almost 589 vacancies have been filled in the Zila Parishad, Barmer on the basis of the merit list was prepared based on the qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational)/Senior Secondary (Academic) but the submission of Mr. Gupta is that this controversy came up before the Division Bench of this court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 857/1997 [Rajpal Singh & Ors. v. Director, Gramin Vikas Panchayati Raj Vibhag & Ors.] and decided vide judgment dated 13.05.1998 and a consensus decision was taken by the contesting parties in resolving the on-going controversy since various Zila Parishads have adopted different criteria for adjudging the marks and finally observed that the remaining/ unfilled vacancies are to be filled on the basis of average of the marks secured by the candidates in Secondary plus Training and submitted that in the light of judgment of the Division Bench of this court remaining unfilled vacancies were to be filled across the State in all the Zila Parishads on the basis of the marks secured by the candidates in their Secondary plus Training and accordingly, the candidature of the present respondent-writ petitioner should also be considered on the basis of the marks possessed by him in Secondary plus Training for the purpose of appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. III and according to him all the eleven unfilled vacancies of Teacher Gr. III in the Zila Parishad, Barmer were filled vide order dated 31.07.1998 issued by the Secretary, District Establishment Committee, Zila Parishad, Barmer and indisputably, if the marks secured by the present respondent-writ petitioner in Secondary plus Training are taken into consideration, he could not have been considered for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr.III in the Zila Parishad, Barmer. 9. Counsel further submits that presently no vacancy is available against which the candidature of the respondent-writ petitioner could be considered for the post of Teacher Gr.III in reference to the advertisement No. 9/96 dated 01.10.1996 pursuant to which selection process has attained finality long back. 10. Counsel for the appellant-State Mr. 9. Counsel further submits that presently no vacancy is available against which the candidature of the respondent-writ petitioner could be considered for the post of Teacher Gr.III in reference to the advertisement No. 9/96 dated 01.10.1996 pursuant to which selection process has attained finality long back. 10. Counsel for the appellant-State Mr. S.K. Gupta further submits that although order of the Division Bench was not brought to notice of the ld. Single Judge while passing the order impugned dated 07.09.2016 but the judgment of the Division Bench, of which reference has been made, certainly has to be given its due weightage and any action being taken by the authorities of the appellant-State in contravention of the judgment of Division Bench of this court will certainly put them in contempt and it may not be advisable for them to proceed and further submits that even in the case of Sunita Sharma & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in JT 2001 (10) SC 178 decided on 31.10.2001, although the candidature was permitted of the persons for appointment on the basis of the marks in Senior Secondary examination but the Apex Court further observed that what has been referred to was in the peculiar circumstances and the same shall not be treated as a precedent and in the given facts & circumstances, the present respondent-writ petitioner cannot take benefit of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sunita Sharma (supra) decided on 31.10.2001 which may not be of any assistance to him. 11. Counsel further submits that it was a selection of 1996 and almost more than 21 years have rolled by now and the respondent-writ petitioner has crossed the age of 46 years by this time as his date of birth as per the record is 15.06.1972 and even if there is some justification/merit in his claim, still after his attaining the age of 46 years, no purpose is going to be served in granting him appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III. 12. Mr. Vedpal Shastri, Counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, while supporting the order passed by the ld. 12. Mr. Vedpal Shastri, Counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, while supporting the order passed by the ld. Single Judge dated 07.09.2016 submits that the respondent at least is knocking the doors of this court way back from 1997 and it is very unfortunate that the writ petition was earlier decided after 15 years vide order dated 23.07.2013 and this fact was not disputed by the appellant-State that his merit if considered for appointment on the basis of the marks secured by him in Senior Secondary (Vocational) examination still he did not fall within the zone of consideration for being appointed on the post of Teacher Gr. III and he was under bonafide belief that this issue has been decided by the Apex Court that holding qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) is equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic) in the case of Sunita Sharma & Ors. (supra) followed by the judgment of this Court in Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2003 (1) WLC (Raj.) 187 & there was no apprehension/doubt in mind of the respondent that still he may not be considered for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III more so, when the person lower to him, based on the marks secured in Senior Secondary was considered for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III and indisputably, he secured higher marks than the cut-off marks in his respective category but when the authorities of Ziia Parishad, Barmer have not proceeded in granting him appointment despite being placed in the order of merit, originally prepared by the authority and as advised by him, preferred contempt petition and since no justification was coming forward because of the limited scope of contempt petition, he filed Misc. Application on which clarification of the order dated 23.07.2013 was made by the ld. Single Judge under the order impugned dated 07.09.2016 and in the given facts & circumstances, once he has been able to establish that he secured higher marks than the cut-off marks in his respective category, which was the only touchstone for being appointed as Teacher Gr.III in the Zila Parishad, Barmer & which was also considered by the ld.Single Judge while making clarification under its order impugned dated 07.09.2016, there appears no reason to deprive him from being considered for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III. 13. 13. Counsel further submits that once it was held by the Apex Court that the qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) is equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic) and the Zila Parishad, Barmer has prepared the merit list of the candidates who have participated in the selection process based on the marks secured by each of them in Senior Secondary examination, the advertised vacancies have to be filled by one common standard at least by the Zila Parishad, Barmer in reference to the advertisement No. 9/96 dated 01.10.1996 and as regards rational decision being taken, as observed by the Division Bench of this court in the judgment dated 13.05.1998 is concerned, the same may be of general principle laid down in filling the remaining unfilled vacancies but as regards the present respondent-writ petitioner is concerned, once the person lower to him in merit has been granted appointment, on the basis of the criteria of determination of merit being decided by the Zila Parishad, Barmer and acted upon and against 600 approx. vacancies 589 were filled on the basis of the marks secured by the candidates in Senior Secondary examination, there appears no reason to differ from the view in the case of the present respondent for being considered for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III and any decision contrary to it may certainly be in violation of Art.14 of the Constitution and this fact was not available before the Division Bench of this court while consensus of the parties was recorded laying down the changed criteria to be followed in filling the remaining unfilled vacancies in all the Zila Parishad across the State of Rajasthan under the judgment dated 13.05.1998, which may not have any application so far as the case of the present respondent-writ petitioner is concerned. 14. We have heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material available on record. 15. As already noticed by us, this fact is not disputed that the Zila Parishad, Barmer to which we are presently concerned, advertised 600 approx. vacancies of Teacher Gr. 14. We have heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material available on record. 15. As already noticed by us, this fact is not disputed that the Zila Parishad, Barmer to which we are presently concerned, advertised 600 approx. vacancies of Teacher Gr. III pursuant to advertisement No. 9/96 dated 01.10.1996 and procedure of selection was to be taken note of by the authorities while making appointments in terms of the circular issued by the Director & Special Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department dated 20.07.1996 and para-7 thereof provides the procedure which is to be followed in preparing merit of the candidates who have participated in the selection process. The extract of determination of merit, with which we are concerned, is reproduced ad infra:- 7- eSfjV fu/kkZj.k eSfjV fu/kkZj.k dh izfØ;k fuEuizdkj viukbZ tkosxhA 'kSf{kd iz'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk ds dqy 100 vad fu/kkZfjr fd;s tkosxs%& 7-1 ;ksX;rk vad ¼d½ 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk esa ek/;fed f'k{kk cksMZ] vtesj ls lhfu;j lSd.Mjh ;k blds led{k ijh{kk esa izkIr vadksa dk izfr'krA ¼[k½ iz'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk esa lS)kfUrd izfr'kr ,oa izk;ksfxd izfr'kr dk vkSlr izfr'kr mDr nksuksa izfr'kr dk vkSlr fudkyk tkosxkA mnkgj.kkFkZ ;fn 'kSf{kd izfr'kr 60 gS ,oa iz'kSf{kd izfr'kr 70 gS rks 60$70¾130 Hkkx 2¾65 izfr'kr ds vk/kkj ij x.kuk dh tk;sxhA^^ 16. Indisputably, the merit list was prepared by the Zila Parishad, Barmer on the basis of the marks secured by the candidates in their Senior Secondary examination and as informed to this court against 600 approx. vacancies 589 candidates were appointed as Teacher Gr. III by the Zila Parishad, Barmer in reference to the advertisement No. 9/96 dated 01.10.1996 on the basis of the marks which the candidates secured in Senior Secondary examination and if that is being taken note of, as regards the present respondent-writ petitioner is concerned, indisputably, in his respective category the cut-off percentage of marks was 71.81 and the marks secured by him was 72.7 and there was no element of interview or other considerations except the marks secured in the academic record and was the sole touchstone for consideration for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III and in the given circumstances, at least on the basis of the procedure which was followed by the Zila Parishad, Barmer in making appointments on the post of Teacher Gr. III and in the given circumstances, at least on the basis of the procedure which was followed by the Zila Parishad, Barmer in making appointments on the post of Teacher Gr. III in reference to the advertisement No. 9/96 dated 01.10.1996, the present respondent could not have been deprived from being considered for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III and when the respondent approached this court by filing Misc. Application, it revealed to the ld. Single Judge that he has secured higher percentage of marks than the cut-off marks in his respective category, on the basis of the marks secured in the Senior Secondary examination which is the basis reflected by the authorities in the advertisement No. 9/96 dated 01.10.1996 to prepare merit list of the candidates in terms of the circular dated 20.07.1996, of which we have made a reference and there appears no reason to deprive the respondent-writ petitioner from being considered for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III under the order impugned before us dated 07.09.2016 and we too are of the view that once the respondent after fighting a long battle was able to persuade that he has been arbitrarily deprived from being considered for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III despite securing higher percentage of marks against the cut-off marks in his respective category in the Zila Parishad, Barmer, there appears no reason which at all may come forward depriving him from being considered for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III in the Zila Parishad, Barmer. 17. The submission made by Mr. S.K. Gupta, Additional Advocate General as regards the judgment of Division Bench of this court dated 13.05.1998 wherein reference has been made that a consensus view has been adopted by the respective authorities in formulating & filling the remaining unfilled vacancies in the concerned Zila Parishad based on the average of the marks secured by the candidate in Secondary plus Training may be applied in general/rem but as regards the present respondent is concerned who is before the court since 1997 with a legitimate hope that once he has been able to establish that he has secured higher percentage of marks against the cut-off marks in his respective category, he ordinarily should not have been deprived from being considered for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III and since the issue was not settled by that time as to whether the qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) could be considered equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic), which was the only impediment coming in his way depriving him of consideration for appointment and after this issue being settled by this court and so also by the Apex Court, certainly the general principles may not come in the way of the respondent which could at all deprive him from being considered for appointment based on the marks which he secured in the Senior Secondary examination, after his due participation in the selection process for the post of Teacher Gr. III in terms of the advertisement No. 9/96 dated 01.10.1996. 18. Indisputably, in the instant case, the procedure for determination of merit is to be followed in terms of the circular issued by the Government dated 20.07.1996 and that too indicate that merit of the candidate has to be prepared on the basis of the marks secured in the Senior Secondary examination which ordinarily could not have been given a go-bye at least in the case of the present respondent who appeared before the court with his legitimate claim since 1997 and if at all the appellants are of the view that his marks secured in Senior Secondary examination, irrespective of the qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) or Senior Secondary (Academic) are not concerned/relevant, it was open for the authorities to brought it to the notice of the ld. Single Judge when the writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 23.07.2013 and dragging a poor person for his legitimate cause for 21 years of litigation more so when he was able to establish this fact from Day-1 of coming to this court that he has secured higher percentage of marks against the cut-off marks in his respective category on the basis of the merit list prepared by the authorities in terms of the circular dated 20.07.1996 based on the marks secured in Senior Secondary examination, there appears no reason to deprive him, as observed, from being considered for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III and the judgment of the Division Bench of this court at least may not come in way of the respondent on account of change in the criteria to be followed in filling the remaining unfilled vacancies of Teacher Gr. III and the judgment of the Division Bench of this court at least may not come in way of the respondent on account of change in the criteria to be followed in filling the remaining unfilled vacancies of Teacher Gr. III in all the Zila Parishads. 19. So far as the further submission of the appellants' counsel that the respondent has now attained the age of 46 years and no purpose is going to be served in now granting him appointment is concerned, suffice it to say that because of long pendency in the courts, if we are unable to pay attention to the legitimate cause of the individual who is knocking the doors seeking justice and once he approached in 1997 immediately after he being deprived from being considered for appointment, laches in no manner could be attributed to him and pendency of case in this court at least would not come in his way from seeking employment once he has been able to establish that he has been arbitrarily deprived from being considered for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III merely because he has now attained the age of 46 years would not deprive him from consideration. 20. After we have heard counsel for the parties, we find no error in the order impugned passed by the ld. Single Judge which may call for our interference. 21. Consequently, the instant special appeal being devoid of merit, accordingly stands dismissed. Since the respondent is fighting for his legitimate cause for almost 21 years, we consider it appropriate to direct the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Barmer to pass appropriate orders of his appointment as Teacher Gr. III within a period of thirty days from today on the basis of the marks obtained by him in the Senior Secondary examination subject to the condition that his appointment shall be treated as fresh appointment and he will not have any claim as to the seniority or other benefits. No costs.