JUDGMENT :

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.

1. In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to the Courts.

In Writ Petition Nos. 3866/2021, 3901/2021, 3922/2021, 11372/2021, 11408/2021 and 17391/2021:

2. The present controversy arises out of the selection process for the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-II, which was initiated vide advertisement dated 31.07.2018. The petitioners raised the issue as to rounding of marks of certain candidates contrary to the rule resulting into their ouster.

3. This Hon'ble Court passed the following orders on 12.07.2021 and thereafter, on 03.12.2021:

“12.07.2021

1. Mr. Tanwar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to some software problem relating to the online application forms itself, petitioners' percentage were calculated as 70.82%.

2. Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the State, however, submits that if the exact calculation up to 4 decimal points is calculated, petitioner's (Nihal Singh's) marks come out to be 70.8164% whereas the cut-off marks for OBC Candidates was 70.8200% and thus, the appointment order had wrongly been issued to the petitioners.

3. At this juncture Mr. Tanwar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, asserts that the fault in software was for all the candidates and there are many such candidates who, despite having failed to secure exact 70.8200% marks, have been given appointment/joining while the petitioners in the present writ petitions (who were given appointments in Sirohi District) have been thrown out, whereas candidates similarly situated to the petitioners have been given appointments and no action has been taken against them.

5. Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent-State prays for and granted two weeks' time to file affidavit indicating as to whether all the persons given appointment in OBC Category have secured more than 70.8200% marks (ignoring rounding off, as has been done in petitioners' cases).

6. List these cases on 26.07.2021.”

“03.12.2021

Learned AAG prays for time to make an exercise to find out the status of petitioners, in case, the marks awarded to the candidates other than the petitioners also is taken to four digits.

List on 15.12.2021.”

4. Today, at the threshold, Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted a chart made by the respondents according to which, the candidates/petitioners Nihal Singh, Mamta Kumari Kalwaniya, Chenraj Jakhar, Roshni Poonia and Supyar are falling within the merit and are to be given appointment whereas after the rectification, one Pavitra Solanki is being ousted.

5. The exercise has been done in compliance of the order of this Hon'ble Court and AAG further assures the Court that the said exercise takes care of the merit without rounding of and results into the petitioners' named above falling in the selection zone and since their appointment is not going to affect any other persons, therefore, the respondents are principally agreed to give them appointment.

6. In light of such categorical submission made by learned Additional Advocate General, the Writ Petitions Nos. 3866/2021, 3901/2021, 3922/2021, 11372/2021, 11408/2021 are allowed and as per their own merits and the exercise conducted by the State in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court, the necessary appointments shall be given, if the petitioners are otherwise found eligible and also subject to any other litigation, which the State is facing, within a period of 30 days from today. However, on the same scale, since in Writ Petition No. 17391/2021, the petitioner Pavitra Solanki is being ousted on merits, therefore, the Writ Petition No. 17391/2021 is dismissed.

7. The chart statement of the exercise made by the State and submitted today before this Court is taken on record. It is further made clear that in Writ Petition No. 3866/2021, 3901/2021 and 3922/2021, the order dated 25.02.2021 (Annex. 8) cancelling the appoint