14. I would be failing in my duty if I do not refer to some more points raised during this trial. Sh. S.K. Saxena, Adv. for Om Prakash Chautala, Ajay Singh Chautala and Sher Singh Badshami had argued while addressing arguments on sentence as to why the candidates who reaped the benefit of the scam are still in the job. I fully agree with his submissions. During investigation as well as during this trial,it has very clearly come on record that the favoured candidates were given 17 or more than 17 marks in the interviews. Therefore, such candidates who have been so favoured have adopted unfair means for getting their selections. In Rakesh Kumar Chhabra V. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2012 Cr.L.J., the Himachal Pradesh High Court had held such persons to be the co­conspirators. Hence, such candidates should not be allowed to remain in job. Regarding the remaining candidates, it would be appropriate if the District Wise merit list on the basis of Supreme Court lists is prepared. I may mention that as per Rule 11 issued by the Directorate Primary Education which has been exhibited as Ext.PW52/B, it was directed that District Level Selection Committees would prepare the merit list after conclusion of the interviews which would be sent to the Directorate Primary Education. The vacancies of each district should be filled up on the basis of District wise merit list. Where the Supreme Court list is not available like district Kurukshetra, Panipat and Rohtak, such merit list should be prepared purely on the basis of the academic marks etc. or their interviews should be held afresh.
 
15. I hasten to add here that this is only a suggestion to the government and not a direction. Since, this issue has been raised before this court, hence, it has been dealt with.