PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.

1. These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred, in sum and substance, with the following prayers:-

“(a) The record of the case may kindly be called for;

(b) The order dated 23.05.2017 (Annex.11) may very kindly be quashed and set aside.

(c)The petitioner may kindly be directed to be reinstated in service.

(d) The petitioner may be allowed to continue on the post of Prabodhak in pursuance of the appointment issued in his favour.

(e) Any other writ, order or direction which your Lordship may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances stated above, in favour of the petitioner may kindly be allowed.”

2. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that the petitioners underwent the selection process in accordance with the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rule of 2008’). The names of the petitioners appeared in the select list and they were accordingly appointed on the post of Prabodhak vide order dated 22.07.2010 the petitioners joined their services and were discharging their duties. But thereafter, without giving any opportunity of hearing, the services of the petitioners were terminated on 09.11.2010 However, this Hon'ble Court protected the petitioners vide its earlier order dated 09.04.2014 passed in S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 11953/2010, whereby the writ petition was allowed and the termination order was quashed, while directing the respondents to pass fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing.

3. Meanwhile, it emanated out of the merit list that the cut off marks for the general category candidates were 37. However, it is not disputed that the petitioners did not conceal or misrepresented any material information or fact for securing the appointment. After affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the respondents passed a fresh order dated 26.08.2014, whereby it was decided that though the petitioners did not qualify the cut off marks i.e 37 marks, but the petitioners shall be continued in their appointment, as the State Government had already decided vide its earlier order dated 25.06.2012 that the Prabodhaks, particularly similarly situated persons, as the present petitioners, shall not be removed from their services, until further orders. Thus, the respondents themselves have chosen not to remove the petitioners vide order dated 26.08.2014, which remained in currency. On 07.10.2016, Zila Parishad, Jalore recommended further creation of the seats for the petitioners, and thereafter, the State Government itself recommended sanction of posts, in totality, for 80 candidates, including the present petitioners, who were Prabodhaks, so as to continue their appointment, rather protecting such appointments, which earlier also were protected vide the aforementioned order of the State Government dated 25.06.2012

4. This Court has also seen the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dated 18.04.2017 passed in D.B Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 34/2017, in which one Shri Anil Vyas had been permitted to join the services at par with the present petitioners, as he was higher in merit i.e 36.67 marks. The respondents, before the Hon'ble Division Bench, had admitted that Shri Anil Vyas had secured 36.67 marks and also admitted that there was no reason to discriminate Shri Anil Vyas vis-a-vis the present petitioners. It was the respondents themselves, who admitted the position that the present petitioners were continuing on their respective post. The order of the Hon'ble Division Bench has already been implemented and Shri Anil Vyas has been given appointment.

5. The respondents however, meanwhile decided that the services of the present petitioners ought to be terminated in compliance of the aforementioned order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench, whereas no such compliance was mentioned or required in the said order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench