Veerendr Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that identical controversy has already been raised, considered and adjudicated upon by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Manju Devi Dorwal & Anr. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4473/2006, vide order dated 25th February, 2009, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the counsel for the opposite party, observing thus: "Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that the respondents do not deny the fact that there are four candidates lesser meritorious than the petitioner who have been posted in Sikar District whereas according to the notification inviting application, the preference in the matter of posting was to be based on inter se merit of the candidates. In case, there was conflict of option, the candidates who had higher merit was entitled to be posted in the district of his choice. The contention that since the RPSC sent the names of some of the lesser meritorious candidates in the earlier 5 list and name of the petitioner found place in later list, is something which is inter se between the working of the RPSC and the State Government, the fact is that by posting lesser meritorious candidates in Sikar as Teacher Gr.III in preference to higher meritorious candidates, both of whom have opted for Sikar, the respondents have violated their own conditions of the advertisement which indicated that such posting would be strictly based on the basis of merit cum preference cum availability of posts. Moreover, the application of the petitioner for transfer also is said to be pending with the respondents and this fact is not denied by the respondents in para 8 of the reply in which they have stated that such representation of the petitioner was pending consideration and the petitioner should be posted in Sikar so soon the permission is received from the State Government, whereas the respondents have posted number of persons to various districts by way of transfer. There is no explanation as to why and on what basis, the case of the petitioner was not considered 6 but for the present purpose, the transfer and posting is not made basis for acceptance of the present writ petition. Because the petitioner has successfully demonstrated before this court that the respondents have acted in violation of their condition (i) given in note no.1 of the advertisement and thereby discriminated against the petitioner having not posted them in Sikar district despite their higher merit than the four persons referred to above. They have thus violated articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. So far as the cited judgement is concerned, the same does not apply to the facts of the present case because in the said case, the writ petition was dismissed as no one appeared to contest the petition on behalf of the petitioner and the Court observed that no material has been placed by the petitioners to substantiate the claim with respect to their right to appointment in home districts, whereas in the present case, the petitioners have produced ample material. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to 7 grant posting to the petitioner in District Sikar in view of note no.1 in the advertisement within a period of two months from the date copy of this order is produced before them."
(2.) It is further contended that for the present; the petitioner would be satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed to decide the representation of the petitioners in the backdrop of the adjudication made in the case of Manju Devi Dorwal & Anr. , within a time frame, which the petitioner is ready and willing to address within two weeks hereinafter.
(3.) In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioner to address a comprehensive representation enclosing a copy of the order in the case of Manju Devi Dorwal & Anr. .;