ORDER : These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners in relation to recruitment of Teacher Grade-III (Level-I) and Teacher Grade-III (Level-II) pursuant to Recruitment-2018 under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (“Act of 1994”) and Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (“Rules of 1996”). 2. The recruitment was initiated by issuance of Advertisement dated 12.04.2018 for the post of Teacher Grade-III Level I for Non-TSP area and Advertisement dated 31.07.2018 for recruitment on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-II) for Non-TSP area. Based on the advertisement, provisional selection lists were issued and the selected candidates were called for document verification; pursuant thereto, the eligible candidates were offered appointments. 3. As due to ineligibility/absence of the candidates at the time of document verification and non-joining by various appointed candidates, several posts remained unfilled, the State Government pursuant to order dated 25.02.2019 (Annex.14 with SBCWP No.2458/2021) prepared reserve/wait lists dated 08.05.2019 and 28.02.2019 for Level-I and Level-II respectively, called the candidates for document verification and offered appointments. When various posts still remained unfilled, again because of ineligibility/absence of the candidates at the time of document verification and non-joining of the various appointed candidates, the State decided not to proceed further pursuant to Recruitment 2018, a batch of writ petitions led by Kuldeep Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2094/2019 pertaining to Teacher Grade-III (Level-II) came to be filed, which were decided by order dated 20.07.2020 whereby the petitions were allowed. 4. Similarly, following the judgment in the case of Kuldeep Kumar (supra), a group of petitions pertaining to Teacher GradeIII (Level-I) led by Lokendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1184/2020 came to be decided by order dated 17.08.2020. 5. When the State implemented the directions given in the case of Kuldeep Kumar (supra) and Lokendra Singh (supra) by issuing list dated 29.12.2020 for Teacher Grade-III (Level-I) and list dated 11.01.2021 for Teacher Grade-III (Level-II), the same resulted in filing of the present writ petitions, led by Ramniwas pertaining to Teacher Grade-III (Level-I) and Rakesh Godara relating to Teacher Grade-III (Level-II). 6. 6. The petitioners in the petitions have assailed the validity of the list being allegedly in violation of the provisions of Rule 277 A (vi) of the Rules of 1996 and in view of the fact that the cutoff for Teacher Grade-III (Level-II) in the list dated 29.12.2020 for General Male and OBC Male were identical i.e. 70.67% with the submission that the respondents pursuant to decision dated 25.02.2019 (Annex.14), were bound to reshuffle the candidates and the offering of the appointment category-wise by the respondents is ex-facie contrary to the law. 7. Submissions have been made that the law with regard to recruitment and operating of the list is well settled, inasmuch as against the vacancy identified for open category, everyone irrespective of their category, should be allowed to compete on the basis of merit and meritorious candidates should be first selected under the open quota, which aspect has been grossly violated by the respondents while issuing the lists dated 29.12.2020 and 11.01.2021. Submissions have been made that the directions given in the case of Kuldeep Kumar (supra) and Lokendra Singh (supra) have been wrongly implemented, inasmuch as the direction given was required to be read in the context and the respondents have violated the law, as laid down. It is prayed that the petitions deserve to be allowed, the lists as published deserve to be quashed and the respondents be directed to act in accordance with law by following the procedure prescribed under Rule 277A (vi) of the Rules of 1996 and various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 8. Reliance has been placed on State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. vs. K. Shobana : (2021) 4 SCC 686 , Pramod Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. : (2021) 4 SCC 680 and Saurav Yadav vs. State of U.P. : (2021) 4 SCC 542 . 9. Alternative submission was made that even if the respondents contrary to law have accorded appointment to several candidates, still on account of passing of interim orders in the present writ petitions, large number of posts are lying vacant, at least they need to be filled up in accordance with law. 10. 9. Alternative submission was made that even if the respondents contrary to law have accorded appointment to several candidates, still on account of passing of interim orders in the present writ petitions, large number of posts are lying vacant, at least they need to be filled up in accordance with law. 10. Learned Advocate General made vehement submissions that the respondents have complied with the directions given in the case of Kuldeep Kumar (supra) and Lokendra Singh (supra), wherein the respondents were specifically directed to fill the remaining posts of each subject ‘while operating category-wise reserve list’. The respondents have followed the said directions, which neither can be questioned nor a petition challenging the compliance of the judgment is maintainable. Further submissions were made that the learned Single Judge, who delivered the judgment in the case of Kuldeep Kumar (supra), suto-moto issued clarification dated 25.02.2021 modifying the directions given on 20.07.2020. The said order was questioned by State by filing D.B.S.A.W. No.357/2021 (State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar Jat & Ors.), which special appeal came to be allowed by the Division Bench on 22.11.2021, whereby the order dated 25.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge was reversed and therefore, it is not open for the petitioners to contend contrary to the directions issued on 20.07.2020 in the case of Kuldeep Kumar (supra) followed in the case of Lokendra Singh (supra). Further submissions were made that the selected candidates pursuant to lists dated 29.12.2020 and 11.01.2021 have not been impleaded as party respondents and in their absence, no order contrary to their interest can be passed. 11. Submissions were also made that the State has followed the law as laid down by following the provisions of Rule 277 A (vi) of the Rules of 1996 and that question of reshufflling does not arise in the case of wait list, which aspect is well settled and therefore, the plea sought to be raised by the petitioners, even otherwise has not substance. It was prayed that the petitions be dismissed. 12. Reliance was placed on Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar vs. State of Maharashtra : AIR 1967 SC 1 , Kanta Parihar vs. State of Rajasthan : 1999 (3) RLW 1467, Kumari Rashmi Mishra vs. M.P. Public Service Commission & Ors. : (2006) 12 SCC 724 , Surjit Singh Rathord & Anr. vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. 12. Reliance was placed on Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar vs. State of Maharashtra : AIR 1967 SC 1 , Kanta Parihar vs. State of Rajasthan : 1999 (3) RLW 1467, Kumari Rashmi Mishra vs. M.P. Public Service Commission & Ors. : (2006) 12 SCC 724 , Surjit Singh Rathord & Anr. vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6138/2020 decided on 20.12.2021, Chhatar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan : (1996) 11 SCC 742 , State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. Kavita Godara & Ors. : D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.103/2021 decided on 02.03.2021 (Jaipur Bench), State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar Jat & Ors. : D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.357/2021 decided on 22.11.2021 and R.P.S.C. vs. Jata Shankar & Ors. : D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.823/2018 decided on 09.08.2018 (Jaipur Bench). 13. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 14. The facts, which are not in dispute, wherein the respondents pursuant to advertisement, in terms of Rule 277A (vi) of the Rules of 1996 issued the initial list of the candidates who were called for document verification, subsequent whereof orders for appointment to selected candidates were issued. Large number of vacancies remained unfilled on account of various reasons including in eligibility of the candidates, absence of the candidates at the time of document verification and non-joining of the appointed candidates. The respondents formulated procedure by order dated 25.02.2019 (Annex.14) for the purpose of filling up the unfilled posts, based on which second list was issued. Again due to the same reasons, several posts remained unfilled in both Level(s) I & II. The State, as noticed herein before, decided to put a halt to the Recruitment-2018. The said action came to be questioned by filing petitions led by Kuldeep Kumar (supra) and Lokendra Singh (supra) for Level II and I, respectively. 15. The writ petition in the case of Kuldeep Kumar (supra) came to be decided by order dated 20.07.2020 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, wherein the operative portion reads as under: “51. As an upshot of discussions aforesaid, these writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to fill the remaining post of each subject, while operating category wise reserve list. As an upshot of discussions aforesaid, these writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to fill the remaining post of each subject, while operating category wise reserve list. It will be required of the respondents to ignore those candidates, who have already joined, pursuant to the advertisement in question and those who have not turned up either for documents verification or for joining.” (emphasis supplied) 16. A similar order came to be passed in the case of Lokendra Singh and connected petitions, which pertain to Level-I. 17. The State in purported implementation of the judgment in the case of Kuldeep Kumar (supra) and Lokendra Singh (supra) issued lists dated 29.12.2020 and 11.01.2021 for Level I and Level-II respectively. 18. The manner of the preparation of lists dated 29.12.2020 and 11.01.2021 came to be again questioned by way of filing present writ petitions. 19. During the course of hearing of present writ petitions when the matter came up before the same Bench, which had delivered the judgment in the case of Kuldeep Kumar (supra), the Bench after coming to the conclusion that order dated 20.07.2020 in the case of Kuldeep Kumar required review/reconsideration, ordered for listing of decided CWP No.2094/2019 alongwith all connected matters and after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion and directed as under on 25.02.2021: “CONCLUSION : The order dated 20.07.2020 rendered in the present writ petition is hereby clarified in the manner that the stipulation “while operating category-wise reserve list” would be applicable only to the posts falling vacant on account of non-joining of the appointed candidates. Remaining posts, which have fallen vacant either on account of rejection of candidates or on account of the candidates not turning up for document verification shall be filled in accordance with law. DIRECTION: 34. Para No.29 above be read with judgment dated 20.07.2020 rendered in case of Kuldeep Kumar & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.2094/2019). A copy of the present order be placed in each of the writ petitions decided on 20.07.2020 and a note be appended at the end of the order dated 20.07.2020, giving reference of the order instant, indicating that the order has been clarified. Fresh order of 20.07.2020 with the Note be uploaded while offloading the earlier order.” 20. A copy of the present order be placed in each of the writ petitions decided on 20.07.2020 and a note be appended at the end of the order dated 20.07.2020, giving reference of the order instant, indicating that the order has been clarified. Fresh order of 20.07.2020 with the Note be uploaded while offloading the earlier order.” 20. Feeling aggrieved, the State filed a special appeal being SAW No.357/2021 against the order dated 25.02.2021, wherein the Division Bench in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Suresh Kumar Jat (supra), came to following conclusion: “Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, in our view, the learned Single Judge could not have passed the impugned order dated 25.02.2021. Though multiple issues concerning the ultimate view taken by the learned Single Judge in the recall or review order dated 25.02.2021 arise, we would be well advised not to elaborate these issues since the petition of Rakesh Godara is pending before the learned Single Judge in which these legal issues would and need to be decided. The impugned order dated 25.02.2021, however, would have to be set aside for the simple reason that the learned Single Judge had exercised extraordinary power of suo moto review of his own order without their being any substantive proceedings instituted by any of the persons, who claimed to be aggrieved by the implementation of the order by the Government. The petitioner Rakesh Godara had challenged the select list drawn by the Government on the basis of judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20.07.2020. It is still open to the learned Single Judge to test the legality of the Government order in legal terms in such proceedings having regard to the judgment in case of Kuldeep Kumar and others. However, on the ground that the list drawn by the Government was on account of some lack of clarity in the said order dated 20.07.2020, which needed to be clarified or the directions issued needed to be reviewed, the suo moto power to recall or review without full hearing of all issues and all parties concerned, ought not to have been exercised. We have reproduced the relevant portion of the order of the learned Single Judge in order to demonstrate that this objection of necessary parties not being present before the Court was raised more than once. We have reproduced the relevant portion of the order of the learned Single Judge in order to demonstrate that this objection of necessary parties not being present before the Court was raised more than once. This objection was rejected on the ground that none of the counsel could satisfy the Court that the direction contained in para 51 of the judgment dated 20.07.2020, if read in isolation, is within the precincts of the controversy and otherwise in conformity with law. Whatever be the reasons and grounds for review or recall of the earlier order, when it was pointed out by the counsel appearing before the learned Single Judge that any such exercise would result in adversely affecting several persons, who by now have already been appointed, such persons or at least some of them ought to have been heard before unsettling the position arising out of the earlier judgment. Even otherwise, the question as to how the vacancies remained unfilled on account of non- joining of the selected candidates versus rejection of candidature upon document verification/non-appearance of the candidates for document verification, was not discussed in the original judgment. This issue required full consideration and could not have been decided by exercising suo moto powers of review without full participation from all persons concerned. On these grounds, we are inclined to reverse the order dated 25.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge. While so doing, it is further provided that whatever the issues the petitioners Rakesh Godara and others have raised in connection with the select list prepared by the State Government in furtherance of the order dated 20.07.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge, would be examined on the basis of the materials on record in their pending petition/s. With these observations and directions, the impugned order is reversed. The appeals are disposed of. Connected applications are also disposed of.” 21. It would be seen from the order of the Division Bench that the order dated 25.02.2021 came to be reversed and the observations were made that the select list prepared by the State in furtherance of order dated 20.07.2020 would be examined on the basis of material on record in the pending petition. 22. It would be seen from the order of the Division Bench that the order dated 25.02.2021 came to be reversed and the observations were made that the select list prepared by the State in furtherance of order dated 20.07.2020 would be examined on the basis of material on record in the pending petition. 22. The resultant position which emerges is that the directions given in paragraph 51 in the case of Kuldeep Kumar (supra) remains intact, the operative portion whereof is very clear and specific requiring the respondents to fill up the remaining posts of each subject while operating category-wise reserve list. Identical direction was given in the case of Lokendra Singh for Level-I. 23. It would be seen from the order dated 25.02.2021 passed by the Bench, which delivered the judgment in the case of Kuldeep Kumar on 20.07.2020 that the Court did not find that the direction as given on 20.07.2020 was in any manner violated by the respondents and, therefore, decided to review/reconsider the direction and modified the same by order dated 25.02.2021, which order, though came to be reversed by the Division Bench. 24. It is surprising that the petitioners in the present writ petitions, despite aggrieved of the direction/becoming aware of the requirement to get the direction dated 20.07.2020 in the case of Kuldeep Kumar (supra) modified, chose neither to file a review petition qua the order dated 20.07.2020 nor question its validity by filing special appeals after seeking leave, resulting in the order dated 20.07.2020 and directions contained therein becoming final in all respects. 25. In fact, once the Division Bench only on account of the fact that suo-moto power exercised by the Coordinate Bench in passing of the order dated 25.02.2021 was not justified reversed the order, the same was an indication enough for the petitioners to have initiated appropriate proceedings, as they felt aggrieved, for getting the order dated 20.07.2020 modified in terms of their contentions. However, as no steps in this regard have been taken, as already observed, the direction as contained in paragraph 51 of the order dated 20.07.2020, has attained finality. 26. However, as no steps in this regard have been taken, as already observed, the direction as contained in paragraph 51 of the order dated 20.07.2020, has attained finality. 26. The submission now made in these writ petitions seeking to question the action of the respondents in not following the mandate of provisions of Rule 277A (vi) of the Rules and/or various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is essentially requiring this Court to examine the validity/to take a view/issue directions contrary to what is contained in paragraph 51 of the order in the case of Kuldeep Kumar (supra). 27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar (supra) inter-alia observed as under : “38. The argument that the impugned order affects the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Art. 19(1), is based on a complete misconception about the true nature and character of judicial process and of judicial decisions. When a Judge deals with matters brought before him for his adjudication, he first decides questions, of fact on which the parties are at issue, and then applies the relevant law to the said facts. Whether the findings of fact recorded by the Judge are right or wrong, and whether the conclusion of law drawn by him suffers from any infirmity, can be considered and decided if the party aggrieved by the decision of the Judge takes the matter up before the appellate Court. But it is singularly inappropriate to assume that a judicial decision pronounced by a Judge of competent jurisdiction in or in relation to a matter brought before him for adjudication can affect the fundamental rights of the citizens under Art. 19 (1).What the judicial decision purports to do is to decide the controversy between the parties brought before the court and nothing more. If this basic and essential aspect of the judicial process is borne in mind, it would be plain that the judicial verdict pronounced by court in or in relation to a matter brought before it for its decision cannot be said to affect the fundamental rights of citizens under Art. 19(1). 39. The impugned order is, in a sense, an order of a collateral nature; it has no direct relation with the decision of the dispute which had been brought before the Court in the proceedings between the parties. 39. The impugned order is, in a sense, an order of a collateral nature; it has no direct relation with the decision of the dispute which had been brought before the Court in the proceedings between the parties. The learned Judge however, thought that in order that he should be able to do full justice between the parties it was necessary to pass the impugned order. Thus, though the order in a sense is collateral to the proceedings which were pending before the Court, it was directly connected with the said proceedings inasmuch as the learned Judge found that he could not do justice between the parties and decide the matter satisfactorily unless the publication of Mr. Goda's evidence was prohibited pending the trial. The order is not collateral in the sense that the jurisdiction of the Judge to pass that order can be challenged otherwise than by a proceeding in appeal. Just as an order passed by the court on the merits of the dispute before it can be challenged only in appeal and cannot be said to contravene the fundamental rights of the litigants before the Court, so could the impugned order be challenged in appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution, but it cannot be said to affect the fundamental rights of the petitioners. The character of the judicial order remains the same whether it is passed in a matter directly in issue between the parties, or is passed incidentally to make the adjudication of the dispute between the parties fair and effective. On this view of the matter, it seems to us that the whole attack against the impugned order based on the assumption that it infringes the petitioners' fundamental rights under Art. 19(1), must fail.” (emphasis supplied) 28. Similarly, in the case of Kanta Parihar (supra), following the principles laid down in the case of Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar (supra), it was observed as under: “27. In fact, the impugned order dated 19.8.98 cannot be said to be an amendment even by stretch of imagination. It was meant merely for information to the concerned authorities about the judgments of this Court for their enforcement/implementation. Issuing such a circular/order directing the authorities to implement the order of court of law cannot be said to be an amendment of the Statutory Rules. It was meant merely for information to the concerned authorities about the judgments of this Court for their enforcement/implementation. Issuing such a circular/order directing the authorities to implement the order of court of law cannot be said to be an amendment of the Statutory Rules. Therefore, that judgment is with all due respects to my esteemed brother Sharma, J., is of no assistance to the petitioners. The impugned order dated 19.8.98 is an order passed consequent to the judgments and orders of this Court. I am at complete loss to understand as how these petitions can be entertained for the reason that a judicial order can be challenged only in appeal and it can never be amenable to judicial review in writ jurisdiction. (Vide Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra (7). Entertaining these petitions would amount to sitting in appeal against the earlier judgments of the Division Benches of this Court, and such an action, undoubtedly, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.” (emphasis supplied) 29. In view of above fact situation, wherein apparently in absence of any review/appeal qua the order dated 20.07.2020 in the case of Kuldeep Kumar (supra), the same has become final, the modification made by the learned Single Judge by order dated 25.02.2021 having been reversed by the Division Bench and passing of the order in the present circumstances by this Court contrary to what has been directed in the order dated 20.07.2020 without commenting on the merit of said order, which is impermissible in law, the petitions filed by the petitioners seeking exactly the same from this Court, cannot be accepted. 30. 30. Despite exhaustive submissions made by the counsel for the parties on the interpretation of the provisions of Rule 277A (vi) of the Rules of 1996 as well as various judgments with regard to operating the wait / reserve list, the nature of the list prepared by the respondents under Rule 277A (vi), various difficulties pointed out by the learned Advocate General in accepting the plea raised by the petitioners, absence of the selected candidates pursuant to lists dated 29.12.2020 and 11.01.2021, have not been adjudicated by this Court, as from going into said aspect, this Court feels constricted in exercising its jurisdiction, which in case the contentions of the petitioners are accepted, would amount to holding the direction contained in the order dated 20.07.2020 passed by a coordinate bench as incorrect, which essentially is impermissible. 31. In view of above discussion, no case for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court in the present writ petitions is made out, the same are therefore, dismissed. All interim orders shall stand vacated.