Dinesh Mehta,J. - (1.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner belongs to OBC-WD category, she was selected against respective category and qua the candidates belonging to OBC category and lower in merit to the petitioner, while allotting divisions, petitioner has not been allotted divisions as per her higher choice and those lower in merit as OBC candidates have been allotted division, which was sought for by the petitioner.
(2.) Submissions have been made that in Sunita Kumari Meena v. State of Rajasthan: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23680/2018, decided on 02.04.2019 at Jaipur bench, in similar circumstances directions have been given for redrawing the list as per the directions indicated.
(3.) In the case of Sunita Kumari Meena (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed as under:- 'Consequently I would direct that in determining the preference of the MRC candidates for allocation of ranges/divisions as Senior Teachers they be considered against the reserved category posts in each of the division/range for which they have sought allocation on the basis of their inter se merit vis-a-vis other reserved category candidates. I am also of the considered view that the mere fact that the RPSC made recommendations in a truncated manner cannot give any benefit to the candidates lower in the select list or any right over those higher in merit in the select list for the purpose of allocation on the basis of their merit cum preference. Even otherwise in the course of hearing the petition/s it has transpired that the deficiencies in the verification process were rectified by the concerned higher placed selected candidates much before the order of allocation of divisions/ranges to those lower in the merit in the select list drawn pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.07.2016. And it cannot with any plausibility be denied, as it was indeed not by Mr. Ganesh Meena, that where in the same list of recommendations by RPSC candidates, candidates higher in merit in the respective category have been denied their preference of allocation of ranges/divisions while those lower in the same category were given their preference in the allocation, the respondents are under an obligation to make the requisite correction in view of the selected candidates' legitimate expectation and ensure firm adherence to the State Government's own guidelines of 04.03.2018. It is no doubt true that the exercise of allocation of divisions/ranges to Senior Teachers selected pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.07.2016 has largely been completed. It is also true that redoing of the said exercise in the whole or part as would be necessitated by strict adherence to the guidelines of 04.03.2018 would entail some amount of disruption. That however by itself cannot suffice for this court to condone substantial contravention of the respondent-State Government's guidelines dated 04.03.2018. Law, fairness and justice not expediency has to prevail. The academic year 2018-19 has been concluded. The new academic year 2019-20 is to commence only in the month of July 2019 as stated by Mr. Ganesh Meena, AAG. In these circumstances no serious unmanageable disruption in the coming academic calendar of the concerned schools is likely to be caused in the event the State Government were to be directed to strictly adhere to its guidelines of 04.03.2018 for allocation of ranges/divisions to the Senior Teacher selected pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.07.2016. Consequently these petitions are disposed of with the direction that the allocation of ranges/divisions to Senior Teachers selected pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.07.2016 be done afresh in accordance with the observations of this court earlier in this judgment. This direction be complied within a period of two months from today.';