M.N. Bhandari, J. - (1.) It is stated that in the similar writ petition bearing SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2226/2014 titled as Smt. Anju Meena v/s. State of Rajasthan & Ors. along with 11 other connected writ petitions, the Coordinate Bench has passed following order : "Issue notice. Copies of the writ petitions have been supplied to Shri S.K. Gupta, Additional Advocate General for the State. All these writ petitions have been filed by petitioners working on the post of Teacher Grade -II, Teacher Grade -III and Headmasters, contending that their posting as per instructions of the Government ought to be made as far as possible in the district of their choice on the basis of their merit position. Petitioners have in this connection relied on Circular dated 11/09/2013 issued by the Principal Secretary to Government in its Department of School Education in respect of the Head Masters selected for appointment through Rajasthan Public Service Commission and another Circular dated 03/08/2012 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary of the Government for Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department in respect of Teachers Gr.II and Gr.III selected for appointment in Primary and Upper Primary Schools of the State. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a similar writ petition pertaining to Teacher Grade -III was allowed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15668/2012 : Monika Meel v/s. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur vide order dated 3/10/2012 on the basis of statement made on behalf of the respondent -State that posting in the district of choice would be given to the candidates as per their merit -cum -preference. However, it was also given out that in case of disabled, divorcee, widow and single female, preference will be given to the place of their choice irrespective of their merit position. If any conflict arises in regard to preference inter -se between them, preference would be given to the candidates belonging to any one of these four categories on the basis of his/her merit. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also argued that while some of the candidates have been accommodated within the district of their choice/preference on the basis of merit but the petitioners have not been afforded similar treatment. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that the government is prepared to consider request of the petitioners as per instructions issued by it from time to time in regard to posting. If the instructions dated 03/08/2012 and 11/09/2013 continues to be operative, the government upon petitioners approaching, would consider their request subject to their merit -cum -preference depending on the availability of vacancies in a given district. Having regard to the facts aforestated and considering the categorical instructions issued by the government dated 03/08/2012 and 11/09/2013, all these writ petitions are disposed of requiring the respondents to consider the request of the petitioners on their application/representation now submitted for their posting as per their merit -cum -preference subject to availability of vacancies in the district of their choice and appropriate order with regard to their posting/fresh posting/transfer to such district, may be passed within two months from the date such application/representation is submitted before them."
(2.) Accordingly, a prayer is made to cover the present case by the order in the case supra, as otherwise the respondents would be considering the representation/request of the petitioner/s for their posting subject to merit -cum -preference.
(3.) In view of the prayer made, this writ petition is also disposed of and is ordered to be covered by the judgment in the case of Smt. Anju Meena (Supra). It is, however, made clear that if the respondents find any difficulty to carry out the order, they would be at liberty to file the application for recalling or modification of the order within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In absence of which, it would be presumed that they have no objection to consider the case of the petitioner on his representation/request, as has been directed in the case supra.;