Hon'ble Dr. KOTHARI, J.—These writ petitions involving similar controversy are being decided by this common order, however, the facts are illustratively taken from SBCWP No.1460/2013-Sandeep Kumar Babal vs. State of Rajasthan. The petitioner, Sandeep Kumar Babal, was initially appointed on probation for a period of two years as Teacher Grade-III vide the order (Annex.P/1) dated 14.07.2010 in the pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 with the grade pay of Rs.2800/- after being duly selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in pursuance of the Advertisement No.1 dated 20.06.2008 and as modified by Advertisement No.2 dated 02.09.2008.

2. The said selection process, however, became matter of judicial scrutiny by this Court and in the DB Civil Special Appeal (W) No.207/2013- Vinita Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (decided on 02nd August, 2013) in a judgment authored by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, the Division Bench of this Court put to rest the said controversy, which occurred on account of revision of merit list upon answer key for the said examination by multiple choice questions found to be incorrect in respect of one question No.20 in Series-A paper, which was quoted by the Division Bench in the said judgment and consequently the said revision of merit list resulted in the ouster/ termination of the persons like the present petitioners since in the revised merit list, they did not find their names having been pushed down. The Division Bench of this Court held that the revised merit list had to be given logical and consequential effect and, therefore, the termination/ouster of such persons like the present petitioners, was not liable to be interfered with. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Vinita Sharma (supra) is quoted herein below:-

“The sequence of events constituting the factual backdrop is not in dispute. Noticeably, it is not the case of either of the parties that the judgments delivered in Hari Singh & Ors. (supra) and Meenakshi Sharma (supra) have, as on dates, being interfered with or modified by any higher forum. Though there is no specific direction in Hari Singh & Ors. (supra), for ouster of the candidates earlier selected and appointed, but whose means do not find place in the revised merit list, in our estimate, having regard to the nature of the exercise directed, it was a contemplated and logical consequence as a corollary thereof. In Meenakshi Sharma (supra), the plea, amongst others, that the revision of the merit list ought to be confined only to the writ petitions, was rejected in categorical terms. That no appointment of any candidate beyond the number of posts advertised in the selection process, has been recorded in emphatic terms. Apart from the fact that the appoint-ment orders of the appellant/writ petitions did contain a stipulation that the same would be subject to the orders passed in the writ petitions filed before this Court, there is no semblance of any evidence that the 1688 posts said to be vacant as on 1.1.2013 or any number therefrom, had been within the purview of the selection process involved, but had remained unfilled even after the publication of the revised merit list. The reference of these vacancies therefore, is of no decisive significance. If these vacancies do not relate to the selection process in hand, accommodation of any unsuccessful candidates therein against the same, would not be permissible in law, as it would then tantamount to recruiting persons against posts, not thrown open to be competed for by the available, eligible and even more meritorious candidates. This would run contra to the constitutionally enjoined norms governing the process of recruitment to public service. As the litmus test, is and ought to be merit and merit alone exhibited by the performance of the candidates in a public participa-tory process initiated for appointment in public office, there cannot be any compromise with this imperative prece