ORDER : Ganesh Ram Meena, J. 1. By filing instant writ petition the petitioner has prayed to issue directions to the respondents to allow him joining on the post of Nurse Gr.II in pursuance of the select list dated 09.02.2016 as per his merit with all consequential benefits. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been issued the appointment order and also not allowed him the joining on the post of Nurse Gr.II even after his final selection pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.02.2013. Counsel submits that the respondents issued the revised list of selected candidates on 09.02.2016 (Annex.4) wherein the name of the petitioner was placed at S.No. 7016. However, the respondents neither issued any appointment order in favour of the petitioner even after he being placed in the select list nor the respondents informed about the select list because of which he has been deprived from appointment on the post of Nurse Gr.II. 3. Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner was though placed in the select list dated 09.02.2016 but he did not appear for verification of documents on the given date and, therefore, no appointment order was issued in his favour. Counsel submits that the vacancies which remained unfilled due to non-joining of the selected candidates, have been filled up by operating the waiting list. Counsel submits that since the petitioner did not appear for verification of documents and no appointment order was issued to him without verification of documents, the vacancy against which the petitioner was selected was filled up from the candidate of waiting list, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed any relief. 4. On consideration of the submissions and the pleadings, the facts emerges are that the respondents issued an advertisement dated 26.02.2013 for inviting applications from the eligible candidates for recruitment to the post of Nurse Gr.II. The petitioner being a candidate of OBC category submitted the application form for recruitment against the vacancies reserved for the OBC candidates. The respondents issued the first provisional list on 23.06.2013. The petitioner who has secured 64.52 marks was not placed in the select list. However, the respondents again revised the result and issued the second provisional select list on 28.10.2015 and in that too also the petitioner was not declared selected because as per the revised result the petitioner secured 64.43 marks. The petitioner who has secured 64.52 marks was not placed in the select list. However, the respondents again revised the result and issued the second provisional select list on 28.10.2015 and in that too also the petitioner was not declared selected because as per the revised result the petitioner secured 64.43 marks. The respondents issued third revised provisional select list on 09.02.2016 and as per the revised result, the petitioner secured 64.88 marks and the cut off marks for OBC candidates was 64.807. Since the petitioner has secured marks higher than the cut off marks for the OBC candidate, he was placed in the third provisional select list dated 09.02.2016. Pursuant to the select list dated 09.02.2016 the respondents issued posting order dated 10.02.2016 wherein the selected candidates were required to join the duty on or before 28.03.2016. On applications of certain candidates the joining time was also extended upto 27.09.2016. 5. Vide order dated 09.08.2016 the respondents allowed posting to the candidates from the waiting list against the vacancies which remained unfilled because of non-joining of the selected candidates who were given posting orders on 10.02.2016. 6. As per the documents available on the record, the petitioner made an application to the respondents in the Month of August 2016 (Annex.7) that since he has been declared selected but he has not been allowed posting and joining and requested to allow him appointment of joining. The petitioner came to know about his selection in the third select list when certain candidates from the waiting list were allowed to join. 7. The main thrust of the argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was declared selected in the third revised result about which he was never informed by the respondents. Counsel also submits that the petitioner was never communicated the posting order. 8. The submission of the Government Counsel is that after the petitioner being declared selected, he did not appear for verification of documents and therefore, no appointment order could be issued in his favour. Government Counsel also submits that it was the duty of the petitioner to regularly visit the Website of the Department / Recruiting Agency so as to know about the information regularly uploaded in the Website in regard to the appointments. 9. To some extent the contention of the Government Counsel may be convincing. Government Counsel also submits that it was the duty of the petitioner to regularly visit the Website of the Department / Recruiting Agency so as to know about the information regularly uploaded in the Website in regard to the appointments. 9. To some extent the contention of the Government Counsel may be convincing. If the petitioner would have been declared selected at the first instance while publishing the first provisional select list and would have failed to appear for verification of documents on a given date because in a normal course a candidate who is aspiring for selection to a particular post pursuant to a recruitment process visits the Website of the Department/ Recruiting Agency. In the present case the first provisional select list was published on 23.06.2013 wherein the petitioner was not declared selected and again after revising the result, the respondents issued a second provisional select list on 28.10.2015 wherein also he was not declared selected. After being failed in getting selected in the second revised select list, it cannot be expected from a candidate to continuously visit the Website of the Department/ Recruiting Agency with the hope that with the God blessings the respondents will again revise the result and he will get selection in the third provisional select list. The submission of the Government Counsel that the candidates should have regularly visited the Website of the Department/ Recruiting Agency is wholly misconceived and is like a slap on the cheek of an unemployed person. It was not a fault of a candidate because of which the result was revised again and again. It is kind of failure on the part of the Recruiting Agency i.e. the respondents because of which the result has been revised again and again and the selected candidates have been reshuffled by making inclusion of certain candidates by ousting others. Since the petitioner was declared selected in the third revised result, the expectation of the respondents that he should have regularly visited the Website and should have approached the respondents for verification of documents i.e. on the very next day of publication of the third revised result dated 09.02.2016 for which the date for verification of documents was scheduled to be fixed as 10.02.2016. The respondents after declaration of the third revised result on 09.02.2016 have issued posting orders of the selected candidates on 10.02.2016, though the respondents have not placed on record the posting order dated 10.02.2016 but since the State Counsel has stated at Bar that no appointment/ posting order was issued in favour of the petitioner because he failed to appear for verification of documents. The respondents have also failed to place on record any document which could show that the selected candidates were ever called for verification of documents or communicated properly. May be certain candidates have approached the respondents soon after they being selected but non-appearance of the selected candidate/s without there-being proper information, cannot be said to be a fault on his/their part so as to deprive him/them from his legal and fundamental right of seeking government employment on the post of his/their own merit. 10. The instructions given in the advertisement also very specifically says that the selected candidates have to appear before the Competent Authority for verification of documents on being called by the Department. Sub-clause (I) of Clause 11 of the advertisement dated 26.02.2013 is very much specific in this regard and the same is quoted as under:- 11. Sub-clause (viii) of Clause 12 of the advertisement also says that the appointment order shall be issued only after verification of documents of the selected candidates in regard to their educational qualifications, experience etc. 12. As per the facts on record, the name of the petitioner did not find place in the first select list published on 23.06.2013 and so also his name did not find place in the second select list published on 28.10.2015. Fortunately with the God blessings the petitioner was declared selected in the revised result which was published on 09.02.2016. As per the terms and conditions of Clause 11 of the advertisement, the respondents were under an obligation to inform the selected candidates in regard to the date, time and place and the Authority before whom they have to appear for verification of documents so that they can seek appointment order after due verification. In the present case no documentary material has been placed on record by the respondents in regard to any kind of information which was sent to the selected candidates for their appearance for verification of documents on a given date. In the present case no documentary material has been placed on record by the respondents in regard to any kind of information which was sent to the selected candidates for their appearance for verification of documents on a given date. The respondents have even not disclosed in the reply or during the course of arguments that what was the date fixed for verification of the documents of the selected candidates vide third provisional select list dated 09.02.2016. 13. The Coordinate Bench of the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Bajrang Lal & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2638/2015) decided on 08.09.2015 has observed as under:- “As a matter of fact, the resolution of the education department goes to the extent of requiring the Commission to individually inform 597 candidates who were selected in the revised result other than the petitioners in the writ petitions filed at Jaipur Bench of this Court. Keeping in view the fact that the result was revised after nearly 7 years, the RPSC was under an obligation to individually intimate each candidate regarding his selection in merit pursuant to revision of result. This all the same was more necessary, considering the fact that the RPSC communicated rejection of the candidature to each candidate individually by letters of different dates between February/March, 2015. The cancellation of selection of the petitioners is absolutely arbitrary and illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice. 13. Since the RPSC intimated the candidates regarding the cancellation of their selection by individual letters, it was obliged to adopt the same procedure by intimating them of the revised result and than consequential selection by sending them individual communications. 14. As a result of the aforesaid discus con, the instant writ petitions deserve to be and are hereby allowed. The RPSC shall make a fresh publication of the revised result in newspapers having wide circulation in the state of Rajasthan providing an outer limit of one month to the candidates for submitting their complete application forms with the requisite educational testimonials. Upon submission of the application forms within the stipulated time, the suitability of each applicant shall be examined and if found fit, the candidates' names shall be recommended for appointment to the State Government as per law. Upon submission of the application forms within the stipulated time, the suitability of each applicant shall be examined and if found fit, the candidates' names shall be recommended for appointment to the State Government as per law. Such candidates who might have crossed the outer age limit for appointment shall be entitled to age relaxation. The petitioners and other such meritorious candidates who are aware of the revised result, shall be entitled to submit their applications without waiting for such publication. The petitioners' appointment orders shall relate back to the date of issuance of the appointment orders for 88 candidates who filed the writ petitions before Jaipur Bench. The petitioners shall be entitled to notional benefits during the intervening period from the said date till the date they actually join the service.” In the aforesaid case though the respondents therein have relied upon the Press Release issued by the respondents even then the High Court has not accepted that too be a proper intimation. 14. In the case of Brijesh Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18992/2017) decided on 8.11.2017 along-with other connected petitions, the Coordinate Bench of the Principal Seat at Jodhpur has observed as under :- “Since the present batch of writ petitions has been filed by the petitioners with a common grievance, therefore, the same has been taken up together and decided by this common order. The petitioners are the candidates, who have participated in the selection process for the post of Teacher Grade-III. The recruitment process was initiated by issuing advertisement in 2013 by the different Zila Parishad for making the appointment on the aforesaid post. The result of the said examination was declared in August, 2017 and the cutoff marks were also issued by calling the candidates 1.5 times in proportion to the vacancies advertised. The required candidates when failed to join the Department, the respondents issued the second list in October, 2017 and again issued the cutoff marks of the second list and notified the candidates for document verification in the same ratio of 1.5 times against the vacancies, which were available. The present petitioners are the candidates, who could not attend the office of Zila Parishad concerned, for document verification on the dates given by the Zila Parishad concerned. The present petitioners are the candidates, who could not attend the office of Zila Parishad concerned, for document verification on the dates given by the Zila Parishad concerned. Grievance raised by the petitioners in the present writ petitions is about the document verification carried out only by issuing advertisement in the newspaper and not by personal information sent to them. The petitioners have pleaded that the respondents ought to have sent personal information to the petitioners for document verification. The petitioners have enumerated their various difficulties in not appearing on the stipulated date for document verification. The petitioners have also taken a plea that the advertisement was issued in the year 2013 and due to various litigations, the document verification was scheduled after a gap of about 4 years, that too, after revision of result. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that Clause No. 16 of the advertisement issued for making recruitment process clearly shows the manner of submitting the online applications by the incumbents. Counsel submits that recruiting agency had clearly given out the instructions to the effect that the candidates will be informed about their roll number and Examination Center on their E-mail ID/Mobile Number. Counsel submits that if the Department was obliged to inform the candidates about their roll number and Examination Center, the non-communication of personal intimation about document verification is much more fatal for the candidates, Counsel has submitted that inclusion of petitioners names in the merit list for consideration for appointment results into a crystallized right and as such, at this juncture, there is more responsibility on the part of Recruiting Agency to send the intimation to the candidates by personal mode. Mr. S.K. Gupta, AAG, has appeared on behalf of the respondents and opposed the aforesaid prayer of the petitioners. Counsel for the respondents contended that the requisite intimation was published in the newspaper by the Zila Parishad concerned and also uploaded on the web-site of the Department. Mr. S.K. Gupta AAG also submits that there was no requirement of sending the intimation to the candidates by any other mode and in particularly the personal service. Mr. Counsel for the respondents contended that the requisite intimation was published in the newspaper by the Zila Parishad concerned and also uploaded on the web-site of the Department. Mr. S.K. Gupta AAG also submits that there was no requirement of sending the intimation to the candidates by any other mode and in particularly the personal service. Mr. S.K. Gupta, AAG, submits that appointments were made in the year 2015 itself, but due to controversy raised about minimum marks obtained in RTET, the matter travelled to the Supreme Court and as such, the Department was to make appointments after the judgment of the Apex Court. Counsel for the respondent has further submitted that initially the appointments were given only to those candidates, who have obtained minimum 60% marks in RTET and all other candidates were not eligible. Counsel for the respondent also submitted that the candidates who had applied in pursuance of the advertisement issued in 2013, should have been vigilant and they were required to keep track of the advertisements and once the intimation was uploaded on the web-site, no other mode of service is contemplated either in the Rules or in the instructions. Mr. S.K. Gupta, AAG, has drawn attention of the Court towards Sub-Instruction No. (9) of the Instructions No. 19 wherein general instructions were given. Counsel for the respondents submits that all the candidates were informed that all information relating to the Examination was available on the website i.e.www.examtgt.rajasthan.gov.in. I have considered the rival submissions made by both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is not disputed that the selection process for the post of Teacher Grade-III was conducted and set in motion in 2013 and due to various round of litigations, finally the second list of selected candidates with cutoff marks was issued in August, 2017. 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. 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 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 17thNovember, 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”. The Coordinate Bench of Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Babita Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16318/2017) decided on 11.12.2017, relying upon the judgment passed in the case of Brijesh Kumari (supra) has allowed the petitioner therein the verification of documents also on same terms. The order passed in the case of Babita Choudhary (supra) has been upheld by the Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 12.03.2018 in D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.550/2018, State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Babita Choudhary. 15. In view of the facts and observations and so also the law laid down by the Courts in various judgments, as referred above, this Court can safely held that the Recruiting Agency in a peculiar case like the present one is under an obligation to inform the selected candidates of their selection and should specifically inform them by proper means for the date, time and place and the Authority for verification of the documents. The candidate like the petitioner who has been declared selected in the third revised result cannot be deprived from his fundamental right of seeking government employment on the basis of his own merit merely on the ground that he did not appear for verification of documents without there-being any proper intimation to him about the selection. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with the cost of Rs.25,000/-. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with the cost of Rs.25,000/-. The respondents are directed to call the petitioner for verification of documents and thereafter if the candidature of the petitioner is found to be suitable, he be allowed appointment and posting on the post of Nurse Gr.II. The above exercise be completed by the respondents within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The amount of cost is to be paid to the petitioner. 17. It is made clear that the petitioner would be entitled for all benefits which the candidate who was lower in merit to the petitioner has been extended. However, the petitioner would not claim actual monetary benefits for the intervening period. 18. Before paring with this order, this Court would like to mention that in many cases it is seen that the selected candidates are not being properly intimated about their selection and their presence to be on a particular date for any further step for recruitment. It is seen that many at times the candidates in the rural areas could not visit the Website of the Recruiting Agency because of various technical issues regularly because of which they fail in putting their presence and also in taking necessary steps. In the present case it has come to the notice of the Court that the third provisional select list was published on 09.02.2016 and the posting orders of the selected candidates were issued on 10.02.2016 as is evident from the order dated 22.03.2016 (Annex.5). This shows that on the very next day the selected candidates were required to be present for verification of the documents because without verification of documents as per the submissions of the Government Counsel, the appointment order could not be issued. Giving only few hours for appearance to a candidate is illegal and arbitrary and unconstitutional because one should get a proper time. In a State like the Rajasthan of large geographical area where it is very difficult and it is next to impossible for a candidate from a remote area to reach the Capital within few hours. The Recruiting Agencies are advised to have a proper gap in between the various steps of the recruitment process so that the candidates may have a proper time to follow the calls. 19. The Recruiting Agencies are advised to have a proper gap in between the various steps of the recruitment process so that the candidates may have a proper time to follow the calls. 19. In view of the order passed in the main petition, the stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of.