The court emphasized the importance of vacancies and the validity of merit lists in determining the eligibility of candidates for appointment.

JUDGMENT

1. Present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India invoking Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India in the matter of advertisement dated 11.08.2013 issued by Zila Parishad for recruitment for the post of Teacher Grade-III by which 6 posts for subject Urdu were advertised out of which 4 were meant for open category and two were for reserved category. One seat out of the two was earmarked for OBC category.

2. Present writ petition is filed with the following prayer which reads as under:-

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and the arbitrary action/omission of the respondents in depriving the petitioner from appointment on the ground not having minimum 50% marks in the graduation may kindly be declared illegal in the light of judgment of Hon'ble High Court in cases of Sushil Sompura v. State of Rajasthan and Smt. Raj Rani v. State of Rajasthan and others and accordingly the respondents may kindly be directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Teacher Grade-III Level II as per his merit position with all consequential benefits."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has secured cut off marks as per Annexure-7 i.e. 84.77. He submits that he took admission in B.A. prior to issuance of notification of NCTE dated 27.09.2007 and 31.08.2009 and he completed B.A. in the year 2005 therefore the condition No.7 of Advertisement dated 11.08.2013 of having 50% marks in gruduation is not applicable on petitioner and he should be considered even though he has secured less than 45% marks in the graduation. He has further relied upon judgment of Division Bench of this court in DBCWP No.3964/2011 titled as Sushil Sompura v. State of Rajasthan and Smt. Raj Rani v. State of Rajasthan in SBCWP No.10182/2012 as wherein appointment was given on the post of Teacher Grade-III, Level II in the similar situation.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection that when the petition was filed in the year 2015 no interim protection whatsoever was granted to the petitioner. He further has drawn our attention to Annexure-6 whereby he has submitted that the petitioner/applicant in the present case had applied in the category of OBC. The said post is already filled with the cut off 123.05%. He further contends that as on date no vacancy vis-a-vis OBC category or qua the advertisement dated 11.08.2013 exists and on that count the writ petition has become infructuous.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents has further drawn attention of this court to Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. More particularly, Rule 274 (2) wherein under the proviso following is enacted which reads as under:.

"Rule 274. Preparation of a merit list by the Committee.- (1) The Committee shall prepare a merit list of candidates considered suitable for appointment to [each grade or category of post except the post specified in clause (iii) of sub-section (2) of Section 89 of the Act in the district] and shall on receipt of requisition from the Panchayat Samitis or Zila Parishads allot candidates from the list in the order in which their names occur in the list: Provided that:-

(i) the number of candidates in the merit list prepared by the Committee shall not exceed one and a half time the number of vacancies actually available at the time such merit list is prepared; and

(ii) the merit list of candidates so prepared shall remain valid for a period of one year in general and upto end of academic session for teachers. After expiry of such period, it will be deemed to have lapsed."

6. As per him, even the merit list prepared in the general category has expired within the period of one year of the academic session.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon co-ordinate Bench judgment of this court in SB CWP No.668/2001 titled as Anju Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., SB CWP No.