AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Twelve writ petitioners prayed before the learned Single Judge that their appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-III be directed to be considered
with reference to their merit.
They impleaded two individuals as private respondents No.4 and 5 and highlighted that they i.e. the writ petitioners had obtained marks more than
private respondents.
In the reply filed to the writ petition the appellants admitted that only writ petitioners No.1, 9, 10, 11 and 12 had obtained marks more than private
respondents No.4 and 5 and based on said admission, the writ petition filed by the twelve writ petitioners has been disposed of vide order dated
29.09.2005 directing that the appointment be offered only to the petitioners No.1, 9, 10, 11 and 12 provided they suffer no other disqualifications.
The grievance in the appeal is to the fact that learned Single Judge not noted all the relevant facts.
The relevant facts are that the issue of awarding bonus marks, based whereon the original select list was prepared became a subject matter of
litigation which reached upto the Supreme Court.Â
The direction issued by the Supreme Court was that appointments made up to 17.11.1999 need not be reopened, meaning thereby, those who were
in the original select list with applicable cut off, if given appointment would be retained in service.
The learned Single Judge has overlooked the fact that private respondents No.4 and 5, though lower in merit when the revised merit list was
prepared, were retained in service on account of the exception carved out by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2002 SCC 562; Kailash
Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
The writ petitioners to whom relief was granted moved up in the merit list after the issue of award of Bonus marks was settled and revised merit
list was prepared.
It is not the case of the writ petitioners that any person lower in merit in the revised list had been given appointment.
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.09.2005 is set aside. The relief granted to the writ petitioners No.1, 9 to 12 is quashed.