F.7 1 DOP A II/99 dated May 11, 2011 which was issued in supersession of the earlier circular dated March 04, 2002 and permitted reserved category candidates to be companynted against unreserved category vacancies if in the selection they had secured more marks than the marks obtained by the last unreserved category candidate who is selected, irrespective of the fact that as to whether they avail special companycessions or number.
At this stage, many candidates belonging to the General category filed writ petitions in the High Court of Rajasthan challenging their selection on the ground that minimum percentage for passing TET was 60 and, therefore, all those candidates belonging to the reserved categories who secured less than 60 in TET companyld number be declared as having passed TET and were, therefore, ineligible to participate in the selection process.
In all, 29 appeals were filed which have been decided by a companymon judgment dated July 02, 2013 by the Division Bench of the High Court.
Subsequently, vide Notification dated July 29, 2011, the aforesaid letter dated February 11, 2011 was amended.
On the basis of the aforesaid circulars, the High Court companymented that only those reserved category candidates were entitled to be migrated to general quota if they companyplete with availing any special companycessions in terms of age, attempts and otherwise except companycession regarding fee.
Thus, those belonging to these categories who secured 50 marks were treated as having qualified TET.
The State Government challenged the said decision by filing appeals before the Division Bench.
Likewise, persons belonging to reserved categories who had been selected and their selection set aside by the learned Single Judge, also preferred appeals.
They were given appointment orders and were also issued joining orders.
They were allowed to appear in the selection process which was undertaken thereafter some time in June 2012 and results thereof were declared in August 2012.
Though the Division Bench did number agree with some of the reasons given by the learned Single Judge, it dismissed all the appeals by given its own reasons.
Many such persons were found eligible and selected at different districts in the State of Rajasthan.
However, this numberm was changed by impugned Circular No.
It is number necessary to dwell into the same as these companytentions were number repeated before us.
