ORDER :

1. Instant writ petition is preferred by petitioner with following prayer:

a) By Writ, order and direction in the nature thereof the action of the respondent of not considering improved marks of Secondary Examination 1997 and not giving appointment to the Petitioner may be quashed and set aside.

b) By an appropriate writ, order and direction in the nature there of the action of the respondents may be directed appointment to the petitioner as Teacher Grade-III in reference to the Advertisement No. 10/1998 with all consequential benefits including seniority at par with the similarly situated persons.

2. The petitioner, who appeared in person, has submitted that the controversy raised in the present petition stands resolved in view of the adjudication by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Mohan Singh Verma vs. State of Rajasthan, CWP No. 11452/2002, decided on 04.07.2015, and also in the case of Brijendra Kumar Jaiman and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., 2008 (3) RLR 1, decided by a Division Bench.

3. The petitioner in person has further referred to the order dated 17.10.2014, passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Keshav Narayan Sharma vs. Director, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department and Anr., S.B. CWP No. 4802/2001, on the basis of the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Brijendra Kumar Jaiman and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra), and submitted that the present writ petition be disposed of in light of these judgments.

4. He further referred to the facts of the case and submitted that the petitioner passed the Secondary School Examination in the year 1984 with Second Division, but in order to improve his marks, the petitioner reappeared in the Secondary Examination in the year 1997 and passed with First Division. He further submitted that Advertisement No. 10/1998 dated 15.06.1998 came to be issued by the respondents inviting applications for appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-III. He also submitted that subsequently improved marks of the Secondary Examination were not counted in favour of the petitioner while preparing the merit list, and later the petitioner came to know that the respondents had considered the cases of some other candidates with improved marks and granted appointment to them. He further referred to the counting and submitted that the petitioner is entitled to consideration pursuant to the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court.

5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Additional Advocate General on the ground that the petitioner submitted two mark sheets, firstly of the Secondary Examination in the year 1984 and thereafter of the year 1997. He further submitted that as per the condition prescribed in the advertisement, the marks secured by the petitioner in the year 1984 were considered as the original marks for the Secondary Examination, and he is not entitled to consideration of the marks secured after improvement in the Secondary Examination. He also submitted that the recruitment process pursuant to Advertisement No. 10/1998, issued in the year 1998, has already been concluded and there is no vacancy available to consider the appointment of the petitioner.

6. Learned AAG has further referred to the judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Nemi Chand Mahela and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3873/2010 (decided on 30.04.2019) (SC) and submitted that the present writ petition has been filed after the decision dated 17.10.2014 in the case of Keshav Narayan Sharma (supra) by a Coordinate Bench of this Court; therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as the same would be contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He also submitted that the petitioner has secured lesser marks than the cut-off marks and, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief from this Hon’ble Court.

7. Heard petitioner in person and learned AAG and perused the material placed on record. We have considered the judgments as referred to