ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed against order dated 17.11.2008 (Annexure-13) whereby the revision petition as filed by respondent No.4 stood allowed. 2. The facts in brief are that: (i) Vide notification dated 18.10.2005 (Annexure-6), applications for allotment of fair price shop were invited. Both the petitioner and respondent No.4 applied in pursuance to the said notification. (ii) Vide order dated 25.04.2006 (Annexure-7), the allotment was made in favour of respondent No.4. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the appellate authority which stood dismissed vide order dated 20.09.2006. Order dated 20.09.2006 was assailed vide a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1601/2007 which stood allowed vide order dated 29.05.2008. (iii) Order dated 29.05.2008 was put to challenge by respondent No.4 vide D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.602/2008 and the same stood dismissed vide order dated 16.07.2008. (iv) Vide order dated 29.05.2008, the Court observed and directed as under: “In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The allotment order dated 25/4/2005 is hereby quashed qua the allotment made in favour of respondent no.4 of fair price shop situated in village Dangawas. The order passed by the appellate authority dated 20/9/2006 is also quashed and matter is remitted to the District collector for reconsidering the candidature of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondent no.4 under the priority no.1 which is "educated unemployed person". The reconsideration shall be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till then respondent no.4 shall continue to operate fair price shop situated in village Dangawas. No order as to costs.” (v) In pursuance to the above direction, the District Collector (Supplies), Nagaur passed order dated 25.07.2008 (Annexure-10) whereby it was observed that it is the petitioner who is entitled for the allotment of the shop in question. The District Collector observed that as per the priorities provided in notification dated 07.10.2005, the petitioner being an educated unemployed person and being a member of Scheduled Caste category deserves preference. With the said observation, the petitioner was directed to be allotted the license of fair price shop. (vi) Order dated 25.07.2008 was put to challenge by respondent No.4 before the revisional authority who vide order dated 30.07.2008 proceeded on to stay the operation of order dated 25.07.2008. With the said observation, the petitioner was directed to be allotted the license of fair price shop. (vi) Order dated 25.07.2008 was put to challenge by respondent No.4 before the revisional authority who vide order dated 30.07.2008 proceeded on to stay the operation of order dated 25.07.2008. (vii) The said order dated 30.07.2008 passed by the revisional authority was assailed by the petitioner vide a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6360/2008. (viii) Vide order dated 04.09.2008 (Annex.12) passed in the said writ petition, effect and operation of order dated 30.07.2008 was stayed. The Court while passing the said order specifically observed that allotment order dated 25.04.2006 had already been quashed by the Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1601/2007. Hence, vide order dated 29.05.2008, the revisional authority could not have considered the said allotment to be in existence. (ix) However, while staying the effect of order dated 30.07.2008, the Court observed that the revisional authority shall be at liberty to decide the appeal finally on merit after examining the record and hearing all the parties concerned. (x) Vide order impugned dated 17.11.2008, the revisional authority proceeded on to decide the revision petition finally and, while doing so, held as under: 3. It is the above order which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide the order impugned, the revisional authority has again affirmed order dated 25.04.2006 which had already been quashed by this Court vide order dated 29.05.2008. Counsel submitted that the revisional authority ignored the specific directions of the Court in order dated 29.05.2008 and proceeded on to again affirm the recommendation of the Advisory Committee which was in total contravention to the directions of the Court. 5. On merit, counsel submitted that as per notification dated 07.10.2005, the first preference was to be given to an educated unemployed and the second preference was to be given to the candidates belonging to SC/ST category. The petitioner being falling in both the two categories definitely ought to have been given preference and the same had rightly been considered by the District Collector. The revisional authority, without considering the same, proceeded on to set aside the order passed by the District Collector which is on the face of it, illegal. 6. The petitioner being falling in both the two categories definitely ought to have been given preference and the same had rightly been considered by the District Collector. The revisional authority, without considering the same, proceeded on to set aside the order passed by the District Collector which is on the face of it, illegal. 6. Per contra counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that the only direction given by the Court vide order dated 29.05.2008 was to decide the matter afresh. In pursuance to the said direction, the District Collector ought to have remitted the matter back to the Advisory Committee as it is the said Committee which had made the recommendation. The process as required in terms of advertisement ought to have been followed and the District Collector could not have suo motu passed the order. 7. Further, the preferences were required to be applied as per notification dated 07.10.2005 which nowhere provides that any person which is highly educated would be entitled to be given a higher preference than to a person who is less educated. As per the notification, the requisite qualification was 8 th class pass which means any person possessing the said qualification would fall in the category of educated unemployed. No further bifurcation could have been made and no prioritization could have been given to any person on basis of being highly qualified or more qualified. 8. Counsel submits that the petitioner being a 10 th class pass person and respondent No.4 being a 9 th class pass person, stood on an equal footing, both falling within the category of educated unemployed. 9. So far as the petitioner belonging to SC category is concerned, there was no direction by the Court to consider the said aspect and therefore, the recommendation of the Advisory Committee as considered by the revisional authority was perfectly in consonance with notification dated 07.10.2005. Further, there were several other incumbents also who were more qualified than the petitioner and therefore too, the petitioner could not have been given preference. 10. Heard the counsels. Perused the record. 11. Further, there were several other incumbents also who were more qualified than the petitioner and therefore too, the petitioner could not have been given preference. 10. Heard the counsels. Perused the record. 11. Vide order dated 29.05.2008, the Court while allowing the writ petition of the petitioner recorded the following finding: “When petitioner is only claiming his right of allotment of fair price shop raising grounds that his case was not properly considered as per the priorities fixed by the state Government and in whole of the writ petition there does not appear to be any misstatement of fact, such contention of respondents is not tenable.” 12. The Court further observed and held as under: “The circumstances of present case are also of same nature because petitioner though disabled person and belonging to scheduled Caste category, his case was required to be considered in the first category fixed by the respondents for the purpose of allotting fair price shop because petitioner is admittedly possessing higher qualification than respondent no.4 and as per the terms and conditions of advertisement dated 18/10/2005 in which it is categorically mentioned that educated unemployed person will be given first priority for the purpose of allotment of fair price shop and upon perusal of said advertisement it is clear that no contrary decision can be taken by the allotting authority. The facts of the present case clearly speak that respondent no.4 was having less qualification than the petitioner and petitioner's case was not considered in the category of "educated unemployed person" as such petitioner's case was ignored only on the ground that he is belonging to reserved category of scheduled caste which is at item no. 2 in the priority list. Being a citizen of India, petitioner is entitled to be considered in the general category of educated unemployed but all these aspects were ignored by the Advisory Allotment Committee and on the basis of recommendation made by the said committee, allotment was made in favour of respondent no.4 by the respondent No.2 which is totally erroneous and in contravention of the policy laid down by the state Government. Similarly, learned appellate authority has also failed to consider this aspect of the matter and observed in the order that District Collector was under obligation to accept the recommendation made by the Advisory Allotment Committee . Similarly, learned appellate authority has also failed to consider this aspect of the matter and observed in the order that District Collector was under obligation to accept the recommendation made by the Advisory Allotment Committee . In my opinion the appellate authority has committed an error while ignoring the fact that petitioner was very much entitled to be considered as educated unemployed person along with respondent no.4, therefore, the order of appellate authority which is Additional Food Commissioner is also erroneous, therefore, not sustainable before eye of law.” 13. A bare perusal of the above findings as well as operative portion of order dated 29.05.2008 makes it clear that vide the said order, the matter was remitted back to the District Collector for reconsidering the candidature of the petitioner vis a vis respondent No.4 under priority no.1, i.e. educated unemployed category. The District Collector, vide order dated 25.07.2008, acted in strict accordance with the said direction. 14. So far as consideration of the fact of the petitioner belonging to SC category by the Collector is concerned, this Court is of the clear view that the same cannot be termed in excess of jurisdiction. Firstly, the said aspect was also to be taken into consideration as observed by the Court in order dated 29.05.2008. Secondly, the said aspect being a specific part of notification dated 07.10.2005 is evident. 15. So far as the ground raised by counsel for the respondent to the effect that there were other incumbents who were more qualified than the petitioner i.e. graduates is concerned, this Court is not required to go into the said fact as firstly, the said alleged candidates are not before this Court. Secondly, the direction issued by the Court vide order dated 29.05.2008 was to consider the case of the petitioner vis a vis respondent No.4 only. Further, order dated 29.05.2008 does not reveal that any such ground was raised by respondent No.4 at that point of time. Furthermore, the appeal preferred by respondent No.4 against order dated 29.05.2008 stood dismissed. Meaning thereby, any such ground even if raised by respondent No.4 stood dismissed at this stage itself. Therefore, no new ground can be permitted to be raised at this stage and that too when the order impugned has been passed in pursuance to the directions issued by the Court in an earlier writ petition. 16. Meaning thereby, any such ground even if raised by respondent No.4 stood dismissed at this stage itself. Therefore, no new ground can be permitted to be raised at this stage and that too when the order impugned has been passed in pursuance to the directions issued by the Court in an earlier writ petition. 16. This Court is of the clear opinion that this Court while deciding the present writ petition would have to restrict itself only to the extent whether order dated 25.07.2008 passed by the District Collector (Supplies) and order dated 17.11.2008 passed by the revisional authority are in consonance with order/direction passed by the Court in order dated 29.05.2008 or not. 17. Coming on to order dated 17.11.2008, it is evident that the revisional authority, vide the said order proceeded on to affirm order dated 25.04.2006 which clearly was quashed by the Court vide order dated 29.05.2008. In the clear opinion of this Court, the said action of the revisional authority is in excess of jurisdiction and in contravention to order dated 29.05.2008. Once an order of allotment was cancelled by the Court and the said cancellation was further affirmed by the Division Bench, the revisional authority could have in no terms affirm the same order again. 18. Further, the revisional authority even proceeded on to record total incorrect facts in so far as it observed that the Court had not quashed or set aside the order of allotment but had only directed for reconsideration of the matter. It is crystal clear that the said observation and finding is not only erroneous but also contemptuous. Vide order dated 29.05.2008, allotment order dated 25.04.2006 was quashed in clear terms. 19. Further, the revisional authority recorded a finding that the recommendation as made by the Advisory Committee was binding on the Collector and the Collector ought to have followed the same. Meaning thereby, the revisional authority has held that the Collector was not bound to follow the directions passed by this Court but was bound to follow the recommendation of the Advisory Committee. In the clear opinion of this Court, the said observation and finding of the revisional authority is also contemptuous. The Collector was specifically directed by the Court to reconsider the matter and it is in pursuance to the said direction that the Collector passed order dated 25.07.2008. 20. In the clear opinion of this Court, the said observation and finding of the revisional authority is also contemptuous. The Collector was specifically directed by the Court to reconsider the matter and it is in pursuance to the said direction that the Collector passed order dated 25.07.2008. 20. So far as the issue whether a preference could have been given to the petitioner because of he being 10 th class pass is concerned, this Court is of the clear opinion that once a finding had been recorded by the Court that the petitioner being a disabled person and belonging to SC category, his case was required to be considered in terms of the first priority, the fact of the petitioner being 10 th class pass was not the sole factor for consideration. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a SC category person and as per preference No.2 of notification dated 07.10.2005, he was entitled to be given preference in any case. Once it was evident that both the petitioner and respondent No.4 were educated unemployed, the only course would have been to switch over to preference no.2. 21. This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Collector, the same being in consonance with law and the directions issued by the Court vide order dated 29.05.2008. Order passed by the revisional authority being in excess of jurisdiction, deserves to be and is hereby quashed and set aside. As a consequence, order dated 25.07.2008 passed by District Collector (Supplies), Nagaur stands revived. The respondent authorities shall be under an obligation to pass appropriate orders of allotment in favour of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from now. The present writ petition stands allowed. 22. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.