JUDGMENT 1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against exclusion of their names from the list of candidates, who have been called for document verification pursuant to the LDC Recruitment 2013. 2. It is inter-alia indicated in the petition that the recruitment was initiated by various Zila Parishads for which the last date of making application was 22.03.2013, which was extended to 18.04.2013. 3. The petitioners applied pursuant to the said advertisement and as they were in merit, they were called for document verification in the year 2015, however, at the relevant time, the petitioners could not appear for document verification due to unavoidable circumstances. 4. Now, on account of various directions issued by this Court, the respondents for the purpose of filling up the 4000 vacant posts pursuant to Recruitment, 2013 have issued list of wait listed candidates, wherein, in few petitions, name of the petitioners were included in the provisional waiting list but were excluded in the final list and in some cases their names have been totally excluded. 5. A prayer has been made in the petitions that the concerned Zila Parishad be directed to include their names in the list of candidates, called for document verification in relation to the available vacant post pursuant to Recruitment - 2013, as they are higher in merit than the candidates, who have been called for document verification by the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that the action of the respondents in issuing the list of candidates called for document verification by excluding them, is not justified, as the petitioners are having more marks than the candidates, who have been called for document verification. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that the action of the respondents in issuing the list of candidates called for document verification by excluding them, is not justified, as the petitioners are having more marks than the candidates, who have been called for document verification. 7. Further submissions have been made that the respondents, in the past also, when they did not permit candidates like petitioners i.e. who could not appear for document verification when they were called in the year 2015, had approached this Court by filing petitions led by Babita Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP No.16318/2017, decided on 11.12.2017, which followed judgment in Brijesh Kumari v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.:SBCWP No.18992/2017, decided on 08.11.2017 at Jaipur Bench, wherein, in a recruitment for the post of Teacher Grade III the Court had directed the respondents that they should give one more opportunity to the petitioners to come forward for their document verification and it was made clear that the said direction was only with regard to the document verification of the petitioners, who were prevented from appearing on the earlier given date. Pursuant thereto, the respondents had issued a circular dated 29.05.2018 (Annex.7 in SBCWP No.15629/2022), wherein, all the Zila Parishads were directed to comply with the directions given by the Court, as the special appeal filed by the State being DBSAW No.550/2018: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Babita Choudhary had been dismissed on 12.03.2018. 8. Learned AAG appearing for the State made submissions that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief, inasmuch as, the petitioners when called for document verification pursuant to the Recruitment - 2013, at relevant time despite being aware of the said aspect, choose not to appear for document verification and, therefore, having missed the bus at the relevant time, now they cannot seek consideration of their candidature pertaining to Recruitment - 2013 at such a belated stage, wherein, on account of the directions given by this Court for the post which remained vacant pursuant to the Recruitment - 2013 are sought to be filled up by the respondents from the wait listed candidates and, therefore, the petitions deserve dismissal. 9. 9. Submissions were also made that the respondents while preparing the list of candidates, who have been called for document verification have excluded the candidates, who have obtained higher marks than the previous cut-off, those who remained absent for document verification in the past, those who were ineligible and such candidates who had joined in other district pursuant to the Recruitment - 2013, which exclusion by the respondents is justified in the circumstances of the case and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal. 10. Further submissions were made that in the case of Brijesh Kumari (supra), the candidates were prevented for certain specific reasons/they were unaware of the fact that they were called for document verification, whereas, in the present case, the petitioners were well aware for having been called for document verification at the relevant time and, therefore, on that count also, the petitions deserve dismissal. 11. Learned AAG further made submissions that in case, the candidates like the present petitioners are permitted, who were there in the merit list issued in the year 2015 pursuant to the advertisement, the same would result in serious complications, inasmuch as, they would claim their rights based on their merit as obtained in the year 2013 & 2015, which would be unjust to the candidates, who have joined pursuant to their recruitment in the year 2013/2015 and on that count also, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners in response to the submissions made by learned AAG made submissions that the order in the case of Babita Choudhary (supra) and in several other orders, which followed the order in the case of Brijesh Kumari (supra) i.e. Jiya Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP No.10796/2018, decided on 25.07.2018 & Jitendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP no.9949/2019, decided on 15.10.2019 and several other cases, wherein, the candidates had approached this Court for permission, got their documents verified, in none of the cases any special reason was indicated for non-appearance at the time of earlier document verification, still they were permitted to appear for document verification and the respondents therein were directed to permit participation in the selection process and, therefore, the plea sought to be raised by the respondents with regard to restricting the order in the case of Babita Choudhary (supra) has no substance. 13. 13. Further submissions have been made that so far as the issue raised pertaining to claim of the petitioners as per their merit, in case, they are accorded appointment, the petitioners are prepared to be placed below all those candidates, who already stands appointed prior to the issuance of the Circular dated 07.09.2022 (Annex.8) in SBCWP No.15629/2022, pursuant to which, the respondents are undertaking exercise of according appointments on the posts which have remained vacant pursuant to the Recruitment - 2013. 14. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 15. As already noticed, the recruitment was initiated way back in the year 2013 and for various reasons, the process remained pending. Ultimately, apparently on account of passing of the order dated 04.05.2022 and 26.05.2022 in SBCWP No.17700/2018 by this Court, the respondents issued Circular dated 07.09.2022 for the purpose of filling up about 4000 vacancies, which remained vacant pursuant to Recruitment - 2013. 16. For the purpose of filling up the said posts, the various Zila Parishads issued provisional waiting list of the candidates and called for objections. 17. After objections were filed, final list was published by the Zila Parishads. At some Zila Parishad like Zila Parishad, Bikaner, the provisional list included candidates like petitioners, who though were in the merit, in the list published prior to the exercise initiated by Circular dated 07.09.2022 but did not participate in the exercise for document verification. 18. However, in the final list issued of the candidates, who were called for document verification, the list was amended and while amending the list, it was inter-alia indicated as under:- mDr izrh{kk lwph esa bl ftys dh iwoZ Js.khokj p;u dV&vkWQ ls vf/kd izkIrkad] iwoZ esa nLrkost lR;kiu gsrq vuqifLFkr jgs] vik= Ikk;s x;s o ,sls vH;FkhZ ftuds }kjk mDr HkrhZ vUrxZr vU; ftyksa es dk;Zxzg.k dj fy;k x;k gS] mu vH;fFkZ;ksa dks 'kkfey ugha fd;k x;k gSaA 19. From the indication made, it is apparent that the candidates like petitioners, who could not appear /did not appear in the document verification prior to the exercise initiated by Circular dated 07.09.2022, their names were excluded. 20. It is indicated that in certain Zila Parishads in the first instance in the provisional list itself, names of candidates like the petitioners were excluded, which has led to filing of the present petitions. 21. 20. It is indicated that in certain Zila Parishads in the first instance in the provisional list itself, names of candidates like the petitioners were excluded, which has led to filing of the present petitions. 21. Insofar as, the exclusion of candidates, who were found ineligible at the time of document verification prior to exercise initiated pursuant to Circular dated 07.09.2022 and those who had already joined at other districts, no fault can be found to the said exclusion. 22. Insofar as, the candidates, who had obtained higher marks than the earlier cut-off as well as those who remained absent from the earlier document verification, the plea sought to be raised by the State essentially already stands concluded by various orders/determinations made by this Court. 23. In the case of Brijesh Kumari (supra), which matter pertained to the post of Teacher Grade III and, wherein, also a similar situation had arisen, a Coordinate Bench of this Court inter-alia came to the following conclusion:- "The appointments, which were made in the year 2015, were only on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates, when minimum qualifying marks are 60% in RTET. All the petitioners in the instant batch of writ petitions, are the candidates who are claiming to be in the select list as per the second revised list, which has been issued in October, 2017 and they have to appear for document verification before the Zila Parishad concerned. The Court finds that there were reasonable grounds in some of the cases, which were beyond control of the candidates, which prevented them from appearing on the stipulated date before the Zila Parishad concerned. Learned counsel for the parties have pointed out that in some of the cases, the person concerned was not keeping well, the lady delivered the child and there were many other compelling circumstances. The Court finds that since all the petitioners are claiming themselves in the selected list and they were having more marks than the last cutoff marks declared in their respective category in the revised result, they deserve indulgence and the Court deems it proper to grant them one more opportunity to produce their documents for verification before the Zila Parishad concerned. Though, the Selection Process is already delayed, yet considering the fact that the Department itself has issued the notice to the different candidates and also uploaded on the web-site, no harm would be caused to the Department, if in the interest of justice, one more opportunity is granted to these candidates. The Court without expressing any opinion about the rival submissions of the parties about requirement of sending the personal intimation to the candidates, suffice it to say that candidates are also required to remain vigilant about the entire recruitment process and official web-site is always available to them to see the developments which take place from time to time. In view of the above, the present batch of writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents and Zila Parishad concerned that they should give one more opportunity to the petitioners to come forward for their document verification. It is made clear that said direction is only with regard to the document verification of the petitioners who were prevented from appearing on the early dates given by the Zila Parishad concerned. It is also made clear that mere verification of document will not confer any right in favour of the petitioners to claim appointment, however, if the petitioners are finding their name/place in the merit or they are otherwise found suitable, their case will accordingly be considered for appointment in accordance with law. It is further directed that the petitioners will appear before the Zila Parishad concerned either on 16th or 17th November, 2017 for document verification and the Zila Parishad concerned will verify their documents, when they appear either of the date i.e. 16th or 17th November, 2017. Accordingly all the writ petitions are disposed of. Stay applications also stand closed." 24. Following the analogy in the case of Brijesh Kumari (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Babita Choudhary (supra), granted the same relief as granted in the case of Brijesh Kumari. The matter was taken to the Division Bench, wherein, as noticed, the Special Appeal was dismissed, whereafter, in the case of Jiya Devi (supra) and Jitendra Kumar (supra), besides several other cases, the relief pertaining to the LDC Recruitment - 2013 was granted by this Court. 25. The matter was taken to the Division Bench, wherein, as noticed, the Special Appeal was dismissed, whereafter, in the case of Jiya Devi (supra) and Jitendra Kumar (supra), besides several other cases, the relief pertaining to the LDC Recruitment - 2013 was granted by this Court. 25. So far as the submissions made that in the case of Brijesh Kumari (supra) the issue was confined to those who were prevented for reasons beyond their control at the time of document verification and as the petitioners cannot claim to be unaware of the requirement of getting the documents verified and have given a very evasive/cursory reason regarding non- 26. appearance at the relevant time and, therefore, they are not entitled for any relief is concerned, a perusal of the order in the case of Brijesh Kumari (supra) indicates that the said aspect was available only in some of the cases and in other cases, the availability of reasons is not indicated. However, a look at the order in the case of Jiya Devi (supra) and Jitendra (supra) shows that no reason, whatsoever, has been noticed by the Court so as to confine the determination made to those, who were unaware of the fact that the document verification was being undertaken and, therefore, the plea raised by the respondents in this regard cannot be accepted. 27. The Circular issued by the State pertaining to the present recruitment after dismissal of special appeal in the case of Babita Choudhary (supra), inter-alia reads as under:- mDr izdj.k foHkkxh; LVasf.Mx desVh dh cSBd fnukad 24-05-2018 esa j[kk tkus ij desVh }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dh ikyuk dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA vr ,sls izdj.k ftuesa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk varfje@vafre vkns'k tkjh fd;k x;k gS] mUgsa daLkhMj fd;k tkuk visf{kr gSA ;kfpdkFkhZ ds dfu"B fyfid lh/kh HkrhZ 2013 ds varxZr o"kZ 2013 dh dVvkWQ esa LFkku j[kus] vU;Fkk ik= gksus ,oa lacaf/kr Js.kh esa in miyC/k gksus ij p;u@fu;qfDr dh dk;Zokgh ij fu;ekuqlkj fopkj fd;k tkosaA vr ,sls vH;fFkZ;ksa ds izdj.kksa esa ftyk ifj"kn~ }kjk foHkkxh; funsZ'kksa dh ikyuk esa Mh-ch- vihy nk;j dh xbZ gS] rks mUgsa lacaf/kr izHkkjh vf/kdkjh ds ek/;e ls okil fy;s tkus dh dk;Zokgh rRdky fd;k tkuk lqfuf'pr djkosaA mDr fu.kZ;ksa ds dze esa vfoyEc ikyuk dh dk;Zokgh dh tkosa] rkfd leLr U;kf;d@voekuuk izdj.kksa dk fuLrkj.k gks ldsA 28. The indications made in the Circular dated 29.05.2018, wherein, those who had approached the Court were directed to be considered has also not confined the same to any specific category. The very fact that the respondents on account of passing of the orders by Court, decided to comply with the directions irrespective of the indication made by the candidate for non-appearance at the relevant time, the same now cannot be put as the basis for denying those candidates from participating in the exercise for document verification and seek appointment. 29. The submission made is essentially contrary to the general principle, wherein, the respondent/employer would always like to have candidates, who are higher in merit. 30. Admittedly, the petitioners are higher in merit from the candidates, who have now been called for document verification and, therefore, to deny the said candidates now to appear for document verification and seek appointment cannot be countenanced. 31. So far as the plea raised pertaining to the petitioners making any claim against those already appointed prior to the Circular dated 07.09.2022 is concerned, the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners have already been recorded, by which they are bound and the said aspect would need consideration as and when the situation arises. 32. In view of the above discussion, the petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed. The respondents - State is directed to permit the petitioners to participate in the document verification pursuant to the exercise initiated in terms of Circular dated 07.09.2022 at the respective Zila Parishads, in case, their names have appeared in the merit list and they have obtained marks more than the cut-off of the candidates, who have now been called for document verification. 33. 33. Further, in view of the fact that several other candidates, similarly placed to the petitioners, who could not/did not appear during the course of document verification at earlier stages and have obtained marks more than the cut-off of the candidates, who have been called for document verification now by the respondents pursuant to Circular dated 07.09.2022 and have raised objections in this regard with the respondents, with a view to obviate the requirement of similarly placed candidates to approach this Court for similar relief and to ensure that the recruitment, which is even otherwise delayed by about 10 years, now is concluded expeditiously, it would be required of the respondents to afford opportunity to such candidates as well to appear for document verification i.e. those whose name appeared in the merit list issued earlier and they could not/did not appear for document verification and have marks more than the present cut-off and have raised objections to the provisional merit list issued by the respondents. For the said purpose, the State might issue an advertisement in the daily newspaper throughout the State requiring the said candidates to appear for document verification on a date to be fixed by the State in this regard.