JUDGEMENT

1. Heard Mr. Kevalsinh B. Rathod, learned advocate for the petitioner, Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned AGP for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Jagrat Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Simranjitsingh H. Virk, learned advocate for the respondent No. 2.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocates appearing for the respective respondent Nos.1 & 2 waive service of notice. Though served, none of the private respondents have appeared in the matter.

3. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matters were taken up for hearing.

4. At the outset it is required to be noted that vide its order dated 10.04.2026, this Court passed the following order:

“1. Heard Mr. Kevalsinh B. Rathod, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned Assistant Government Pleader and Ms. Ruchi Rampuria, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Simranjitsingh H. Virk, learned Advocate for the respondent No.2.

2. At the outset, Mr. Rathod, learned Advocate for the petitioner, would submit that merit list in question was prepared by respondent No. 2 on the basis of the Government Resolution dated 01.08.2018, which was quashed and set aside by the Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment and order dated 05.08.2020 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1910 of 2019 in Special Civil Application No. 18968 of 2018 and allied matters. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid dictum of the Division Bench of this Court, the respondents are required to prepare a fresh merit list. Mr. Rathod, learned Advocate, would also rely upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 29.03.2022 passed in Special Civil Application No. 12983 of 2020 and allied matters.

3. Prima facie, there is substance in the arguments of Mr. Rathod, learned Advocate for the petitioner. At this stage, Ms. Rampuria would request for some time in the matter and to take appropriate instructions in regard to the preparation of a fresh merit list.

4. S.O. to 24.04.2026. List on top of the board.”

5. Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the respondent No.2, would state that pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by this Court and having noticed the decision of the Division Bench of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court, the respondent No. 2 undertook the exercise and, accordingly, prepared the revised merit list. Upon the instruction of his client, Mr. Shah, learned advocate, makes a conscious statement that the names of the petitioners herein now appear in the revised merit list; consequently, their names will be forwarded to the respondent No. 1 – State for the purpose of the appointment.

6. Per contra, Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned AGP would state that in view of said development, any fresh recommendation will be sent by the respondent No. 2, the cases of the petitioners will be considered and appropriate decision in regard to their appointment will be taken by competent authority of the respondent No. 1 at the earliest.

7. Having heard learned counsels for the respective parties and upon perusal of the prayers made in the respective petitions, there is hardly any dispute remains that after the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tamannaben Ashokbhai Desai vs. Shital Amrutlal Nishar reported in (2021) 2 GLR 1696 and also of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Saurabh Yadav & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Reported in (2021) 4 SCC 542, the respondent No.2 was required to prepare the fresh merit list. It is reported to this Court that pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by this Court, an exercise was undertaken by the respondent No. 2. All these petitioners before this Court were found to be meritorious, as their names appear in the revised merit list prepared by the respondent No. 2.

8. In view of the aforesaid, the respondent No. 2 is hereby directed to send the names of the petitioners being found meritorious to the respondent No. 1 within a week fro