S. Ravindra Bhat, C.J.:— In these matters, a common question is involved with respect to publication of select list on 22.05.2019, for filling the post in the cadre of Senior Teacher (Social Science). The writ petitioner (SBCWP No. 10992/2019), challenged the select list on the divergent ground; an interim order made in those proceedings on 10.07.2017 led to third party appeal (DBSAW No. 1117/2019) by one Ashok Kumar Sharma, who claims to be affected by the order inasmuch as learned Single Judge directed stay of the select list dated 22.05.2019.

2. The brief facts are that recruitment, which commenced, for the post of Senior Teacher through an advertisement dated 13.07.2016, led to challenge to the results, which were declared on the basis of answer keys dated 03.02.2018. The petitions were filed by the candidates, who approached this Court at the Principal Seat, Jodhpur. They argued that a large number of answers in the answer key provided by RPSC were erroneous. After listing out the answer keys and setting out how they appeared to be prima facie controversial, learned Single Judge by his judgment and order dated 05.05.2018 allowed the writ petitions. The operative part of the learned Single's directions is as follows:

“65. In light of the aforesaid observations, the present writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to the respondent-Rajasthan Public Service Commission to constitute an expert committee afresh, comprising of three or more members, other than the ones, who have remained members in the earlier expert committee pertaining to the recruitment in question. The said Committee shall re-examine the correct answers to the questions, pertaining whereto, in the foregoing paragraph, this Court has observed, “Therefore, the correct answer to this question needs to be re-examined by the experts”. Such fresh expert committee shall be constituted by the respondent Commission within a period of seven days from today. The expert committee to be constituted by the respondent-Commission, in pursuance of this judgment, shall submit its report, within a period of fourteen days from the date of its constitution by the respondent-Commission, regarding correctness of the questions/answers, which have been found to be ‘demonstrably wrong’ by this Court, as hereinabove, in this judgment. To reiterate, this Court, by this judgment, has not granted any relief to those petitioners, who have directly approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without even raising any objection with regard to the earlier answer key, which they cannot do now, at this belated stage, as already observed hereinabove. However, it is made clear that the next phase of the recruitment in question shall be conducted, only after making compliance of this judgment. It is further made clear that after this judgment, no further objections shall be entertained by this Court, except in rarest of rare cases.”

3. The petitioners, who were not satisfied with the directions of the learned Single Judge, carried the matter in appeal at Principal Seat, Jodhpur (Bhunda Ram v. State of Rajasthan, DBSAW No. 922/2018). During pendency of the appeals, the Division Bench on 14.09.2018 clarified that there would be no interim order and selections would be proceeded in accordance with the impugned order of learned Single Judge. The RPSC, therefore, published the select list on 17.09.2018 in terms of the expert opinion prided on the basis of the Single Judge's order. The present writ petitioners (Vikesh Kumar Gupta) were, as a result of publication of select list on 17.09.2018, displaced from the select list. Accordingly, on 17.09.2018, pursuant to the Single Judge's directions, a revised answer key was issued; that became subject matter of scrutiny by the Division Bench as well.

4. After considering the contentions and elaborately dealing with the merits, the Division Bench by its judgment dated 12.03.2019, modified learned Single Judge's directions in the following terms and held inter-alia as follows:

“Hence, with a view to give quitus to the dispute and to give finality to the selections already made, we hold that the adjudication made by us will be confined to the appellants involved in the present appeals only. Their assessment shall be carried out in line with the adjudication made by us in the present appeals. For the sake of convenience, we are setting out the particulars of question(s) cataloging the question(s) and corresponding answer/direction which need to be rechecked:

Subject Q. No. Direction Reasons set out in para General Knowledge 8 Delete 1 General Knowledge 84 Option (2) is correct 3 Social Science Group-II Paper-II 21 Option (3) is correct 4 General Knowledge-I 98 Option (2) is correct 9 Sanskrit 104 Option (1) is correct 13

As a result, all the appeals are allowed, as indicated above.

Needless to observe that after re-appraisal of their result in the light of the findings given by us, if the appellants march ahead of the last selected candidate, they shall be given appointment, subject of course, to their other eligibilities. The respondent Commission shall carry out the requisite exercise and declare the result of the appellants within a period of three weeks from today.”

5. In compliance with the Division Bench's order, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission on 16.04.2019 prepared and published the revised select list, based on the corrected answer key, only in respect of those candidates, who preferred the appeals.

6. In the meanwhile, one Ashok Kumar Sharma approached this Court by filing SBCWP No. 4508/2019, contending that the names of several ineligible candidates had been included in the first select list published on 17.09.2018, who were either overage or did not fulfill the basic requisite qualifications. By an order, this Court on 13.03.2019 directed as follows:

“In the meantime, the Secretary, RPSC is directed to issue a revised select list, if warranted, excluding ineligible candidates for the post of Senior Teacher (Social Science) pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.07.2016. He should further also simultaneously therewith issue a waiting list in terms of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 20 of Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971. This be done within a period of ten days from today.”

7. As a result of aforesaid order, a further select list was published on 21.05.2019 as a follow up of the learned Single Judge's order of 13.03.2019. In this list, 125 names were further added based on the answer key which had been prepared by the experts in terms of the order passed by learned Single Judge. The writ petitioner (Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Anr.) challenged the select list. It was argued by writ petitioners (Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Anr.) that once the select list had been revised by the Division Bench finding errors in the answer key, a list subsequently published by the RPSC after eliminating ineligible candidates ought to have followed the answer key approved by the Division Bench and the RPSC could not have relied upon the earlier answer key prepared by the experts on the basis of order passed by learned Single Judge and that such select list cannot be in contravention of the Division Bench's order. This, according to them resulted in arbitrariness.

8. Learned Counsel highlighted that in operating such a select list, the answer key would have been defective one, which was found faulty by the ‘Division Bench. Counsel relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Richal v. RPSC, (2018) 8 SCC 81 and in Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2013) 4 SCC 690.

9. The position of the RPSC is best captured in its affidavit filed in contempt proceedings initiated in terms of order passed in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) in SBCWP No. 4508/2019. The relevant part of the affidavit is as follows:

“C. That the answering respondents published an advertisement dated 13.7.2016 for the post of TEACHER GRADE II under the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 under various streams. It is submitted that two corrigendum was also issued on 24.8.2017 and 2.2.2018.

D. That the written examination of compulsory subjects as G.K. -I (Paper-I) and G.K. -II (Paper-I) were conducted on 26.4.2017 and 1.5.2017 respectively, whereas written examination for optional subject were conducted from 30.6.2017 to 2.7.2017 and on 7.7.2017.

E. That total 2203 posts (Social Science) were advertisement against which result was declared on 6.2.2018, wherein 2203 candidates were selected provisionally. Thereafter, result was revised due to change in answer key as per the judgment dated 28.5.2018 and 17.7.2018 passed by Hon'ble Court and a revised result was declared on 17.9.2018.

F. That result was further revised on 16.4.2019 as per direction of Hon'ble Court dated 12.3.2019 passed in DBSAW No. 922/2018 (Bhunda Ram v. State). The result was revised only in respect of those candidates who have preferred appeals.

G. That total 124 candidates who were selected provisionally in different results was declared ineligible. It is submitted that for declaring a candidate ineligible, there is a procedure which has been duly followed by the answering respondent by sending SMS and letters from time to time to the concerned candidates(s). It is further submitted that after giving final notice to candidates(s) by the answering respondent, candidature of 124 candidates were rejected being ineligible as a result of which 124 seats (Social Science) fall vacant against which result was revised against ineligible candidates on 21.5.2019 selecting 124 more candidates in the merit list. It is submitted that Petitioner No. 1 was placed at Merit No. M-746 and petitioner No. 3 Shanker Lal was placed at Merit No. M-1535. The copy of revised result dated 21.5.2019 is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-R-4/1.

H. That as per the direction of Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 13.3.2019, a waiting list in terms of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 20 of The Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (Social Science) was issued on 22.5.2019, wherein petitioner No. 2 Rajendra Prasad Meena was placed at Serial No. R-609 in the waiting list. I. That the answering respondent has fully complied with the directions of this Hon'ble Court and now Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan, has to issue further orders after scrutiny of other eligibility criteria of the candidate.”

10. From the above factual narration, it is apparent that initial direction of the Single Judge to refer the dispute with respect to correctness of the answer keys to an expert, was complied with. The select list was published on 17.09.2018, based on the revised answer key as prepared by the experts. The revised answer key became subject matter of controversy before the Division Bench (Bhunda Ram v. State of Rajasthan), which by the judgment and order dated 12.03.2019, held that the answers to three questions were incorrect and directed the revision of the result only for the appellants. It also specifically directed that in case, the appellants secured more than the cut off marks, they ought to be accommodated. This controversy, therefore, ought to have ended with the revision of the answer key in accordance with the Division Bench's judgment and appropriate modification of the select list. Such a revised answer key was in fact published on 16.04.2019.

11. However, it appears that in the meanwhile, a learned Single Judge in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma vide his order dated 13 March, 2018 directed for the preparation of the select list by ousting ineligible candidates. In compliancejof that order, the RPSC published such a list - a modified select list - in continuation of its earlier list dated 17 September, 2018 following the same answer key. At that time apparently, learned Single Judge was not informed about the directions of the Division Bench. However, even the compliance of the Division Bench's judgment had not transpired - the revised answer key and the modified select list was published on 16.04.2019. This meant that order of the Court to exclude ineligible candidates, remained unsatisfied. Ashok Kumar (writ petitioners) preferred contempt proceedings in the course in which notices were issued and in compliance, the RPSC issued list on 21 May, 2015 for the result 124 posts from those who were lower in merit.

12. This Court might also notice at this stage that like present petitioner (Vikesh Kumar Gupta), who sought to impugn the operation of the select list in so far as inaccurate answer keys are concerned, others had approached the Court (Principal Seat at Jodhpur) (Baldev v. State of Rajasthan - SBCWP No. 6277/2019). The Court had clarified that relief granted by the Division Bench was confined only to the appellants and could not be extended to others. A special appeal (SAW No. 614/2019, Baldev v. State of Raj.) was filed against that order, which was rejected on 23.05.2019 with the further direction to operate waiting list.

13. The petitioner/appellant in this case stated that once the select list is published and operated upon, no further revision can be made. As a proposition, that statement is unexceptional and it is also supported by the judgments reported in Richal (supra) and Rajesh Kumar (supra). However, in this case, one notices that even before publication of the answer keys and the select list on 16.04.2019, a direction was issued (on 13.03.2019) to exclude names of ineligible candidates. The RPSC, therefore, obviously was in a situation where it had to comply with the directions to exclude ineligible candidates and also comply with the directions of the Division Bench, to publish a select list on the basis of revised answer key for appellants only. It did so in a rather peculiar manner, by first publishing the revised answer key and including some of the excluded candidates and thereafter issuing revised select list, by excluding ineligible candidates (in compliance with the order of 13.03.2019) and then filling up names of those who had to be replaced from the individuals, who were lower down.

14. This court is of the opinion that a peculiar situation had arisen mainly on account of long drawn litigation in relation to recruitment of Teachers. Such protracted and layered litiagationm, sparing several rounds has become a common feature in relation to recruitments in the State of Rajasthan and this court has been made to examine each and every selection process and answer keys issued by the RPSC resulting in delay with the process of appointment of Teachers. In the present case too, a peculiar situation arose where the Division Bench made a judgment on 12 March, 2019 which was not brought to the knowledge of the learned Single Judge subsequently on 13 March, 2019. He diserted the State to issue a list after excluding ineligible candidates. The order of the Division Bench was for limited purpose of the appellants only. Thus, RPSC cannot be faulted in having published the list in terms of direction issued on 13 March, 2019 on the basis of an answer key which was accepted for all the appointments made by the RPSC under the said advertisement save and except those who were in appeal before the Division Bench.

15. The Court is cognizant of the fact that no fresh select list on the basis of subsequent selection process was made by the RPSC; the results were merely complied on the basis of Court directions perhaps repeatedly.

16. In view of the above facts, the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge staying the selection process, SBCWP No. 10992/2019 (Vikesh Kumar Gupta v. State Of Rajasthan .), was not called for. It is therefore set aside. In view of what has been stated above, SBCWP No. 10992/2019 (Vikesh Kumar Gupta v. State Of Rajasthan .), the claim for appointment on the basis of the amended answer key, (which too was expressly limited to the appellants in Bhundra Ram's case) is untenable, the writ petition is dismissed.

17. In view of the reserve list published by the RPSC for the post after excluding ineligible candidates, SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4508/2019 (Ashok Kumar Sharma v. State Of Rajasthan .) is held to be infructuous.

18. In view of the above, DB Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1117/2019 (Ashok Kumar Sharma v. State Of Rajasthan .) is allowed. The RPSC is directed to proceed with selection and issue appointment orders as per select list published by the RPSC dated 16 April, 2019 so far as it relates to the appointments in Bhunda Ram's case is concerned and to proceed further with the selection on the basis of waiting list dated 22 May, 2019.

19. The appeal and writ petitions, as well as all pending applications are disposed of in the above terms.