JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the impugned order and the material placed on record. 2. The appellant herein has preferred this intra-court appeal after obtaining leave from the Court for assailing the order dated 25.04.2018 passed by a learned Single Bench of this Court and the writ petition No. 5799/2018 (Sunita Kumari & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) of the private respondents was allowed by relying upon the judgment in the case of Subhash Chander v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12299/2017, decided on 27.11.2017). 3. Background facts relevant and essential for deciding the controversy are noted hereinbelow:- The petitioner as well as the private respondents are residents of District Sikar. The District Education Officer (Primary Education) issued a notification dated 21.09.2017 inviting applications for appointment of Gram Panchayat Sahayaks on purely temporary basis for a period of one year. The process of selection was based on interviews. It was categorically mentioned in the notification that one applicant was permitted to file application in only one Gram Panchayat. In the eventuality of filing multiple applications for different Gram Panchayats, both or more such applications would be deemed to have been rejected. While the selection process was still pending, the appellant herein, filed writ petition No. 17949/2017 (Sharda v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) before the Jaipur Bench raising grievance of arbitrary action. Learned Single Bench of the Court, passed an interim order dated 11.10.2017 restraining the respondents from issuing appointment orders in the questioned selection process without prior approval of the Court. It seems that in gross defiance of this Court's order, Gram Sachiv of Gram Panchayat Khedi Radan, Panchayat Samiti Laxmangarh issued an appointment order dated 04.01.2018 in favour of the private respondents herein. When the writ petitioner Sunita Kumari, realized the fact of the appointment order having been issued inspite of the interim stay passed by the Bench at Jaipur (order dated 11.10.2017), she moved a contempt petition and on receiving notices thereof, orders (annexure-5) dated 16.04.2018 were passed by Gram Vikas Adhikari, Gram Panchayat Khedi Radan, Panchayat Samiti Laxmangarh cancelling the appointment offered to the private respondents. It was clearly indicated in the order dated 16.04.2018 that the same was being passed in reference to the order dated 11.10.2017 passed in writ petition No. 17979/2017 (Sharda v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) pending before the Rajasthan High Court, Bench Jaipur. 4. The private respondents herein without indicating the fact that the termination order had been passed in reference to the pending litigation at the Rajasthan High Court, Bench Jaipur and the ad interim stay order was passed therein, filed writ petition (No. 5799/2018) wherein, the appellant herein in whose case, the interim order was passed as above, was not impleaded as a party. As a matter of fact, on going through the orders annexed with the writ petition (No. 5799/2018), we find that there is no such impugned order or ancillary proceedings which could have given jurisdiction for entertainment of the writ petition at the Rajasthan High Court, Principal Seat Jodhpur. It may be reiterated that the advertisement itself was Gram Panchayat specific and as the private respondents applied for selection in the Gram Panchayat Khedi Radan, Panchayat Samiti Laxmangarh and since all the orders were passed by the Gram Vikas Adhikari, there was no occasion for the private respondents to have invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Principal Seat Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur. The writ petition which was presented on 23.04.2018 came up for consideration of this Court on the first date itself. Covering the matter by order dated 27.11.2017 passed by the Court in writ petition No. 12299/2017 (Subhash Chander v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), the writ petition was allowed by order dated 25.04.2018. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant who was not impleaded in the writ petition, sought leave and filed the instant appeal. 5. It goes without saying that as reference of the writ petition No. 17949/2017: Sharda v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., pending at the Jaipur Bench was pertinently made in the order dated 16.04.2018, it was the bona fide duty and obligation of the counsel filing the writ petition to have obtained the copies/details from the said writ petition and to have apprised the Court regarding the same. 6. 6. As, neither the respondents are residents of any district falling under the domain of the Principal Seat, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur and as the entire selection process and the orders under challenge before the learned Single Bench were passed by the Gram Vikas Adhikari of the Gram Panchayat falling under the Panchayat Samiti Laxmangarh, jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition was not available at Rajasthan High Court, Principal Seat Jodhpur. 7. We are of the firm opinion that the learned counsel who filed the writ petition concealed material facts and managed to procure the impugned order by non-disclosure of the factum of pending litigation qua the recruitment process in question before the Rajasthan High Court, Bench Jaipur. As the order dated 16.04.2018 bears clear recital of the proceedings of the writ petition (No. 17949/2017) filed by the appellant, there was no occasion for filing the writ petition in this Court and that too without impleading the appellant as a party therein. 8. The aspect regarding providing opportunity of hearing to the private respondents (writ petitioners) on which, much stress was laid by Shri Choudhary does not for a moment, convince us regarding the validity and bona fides of the challenge laid by the writ petitioners before the learned Single Bench. Apparently, the order for appointment was issued by the Gram Vikas Adhikari in favour of the private respondents in gross defiance of the interim stay order passed by the learned Single Bench at Jaipur and thus, no sooner, notices were issued on the contempt petition, the District Education Officer (Primary Education), Sikar rightly issued a direction dated 22.02.2018 to cancel these blatantly illegal and contemptuous appointment orders. While doing so, it was not at all required of the respondent authorities to provide any opportunity of hearing to the effected persons. 9. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the order dated 25.04.2018 which is assailed is in direct conflict with the proceedings of the writ petition pending before the Jaipur Bench and hence, the same cannot be sustained. Conduct of counsel Shri Hanuman Singh Choudhary in filing the writ petition at the Rajasthan High Court, Principal Seat Jodhpur is totally unpardonable. He is warned to remain careful in future. 10. As a consequence of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 25.04.2018 is set aside. The appeal is allowed accordingly.