JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Mehta, J.

1. By way of present writ petition, petitioners have challenged the action of the respondents, whereby candidates lower in merit to them have been given appointment, while petitioners have been kept out of the select list.

2. The facts if narrated in a nutshell, are that the respondents invited applications for filling up 1789 posts of ANM on contractual basis vide notification dated 28.01.2016.

3. All the petitioners herein appeared in written examination and having secured 48.015; 80.406; 66.518; 53.569; and 53.569 percentile ranking respectively were called for document verification and the final select list was issued.

4. Mr. Poonia, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case of the petitioner is not different than the one involved in SBCWP No. 936/2020 (Manisha vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr.) decided by a separate order of even date, wherein following has been held:-

"13. In the opinion of this Court, when a clear direction has been given by this Court in the case of Priyanka Saini (supra), in relation to selfsame recruitment, the respondents were bound to adhere to the directions given in such judgment.

14. It will not be out of place to reproduce directions given in case of Priyanka Saini (supra):-

"Following the view formulated by the coordinate Bench in the case of Rajkumar & Ors. (supra), the present writ petitions are disposed of by issuing following directions:-

(i). That the respondents shall issue a public notice in 'Rajasthan Patrika' and 'Dainik Bhaskar' having largest circulation in the State of Rajasthan, within ten days from the receipt of certified copy of the order.

(ii). That the respondents in the public notice shall also disclose number of vacancies available in each District.

(iii). That the respondents in the public notice to be issued in pursuance of directions issued above, shall seek option of candidates district-wise. Needless to say, a meritorious candidate shall first give option for his/her home district and then shall give his/her preference for remaining districts serial-wise.

(iv). That the respondents, after meritorious candidates are allowed to exercise option for his/her home district and posts are filled on that basis, shall allocate remaining posts in other districts to successful candidates on the basis of merit.

(v). It is clarified that no candidate lower in merit will be allowed to jump a candidate who is meritorious. So far employment is concerned, all candidates in merit list shall be allocated a district.

(vi). That respondents shall device a formula to act in consonance with the directions issued by this court above so that no meritorious person is left out of the employment."

15. This Court cannot countenance the stand of the State that, since the petitioners had filled in Barmer/Jalore/Barmer as their first choice of District and the seats got filled by the candidates securing higher marks than the petitioners, they were not considered for appointment for other districts.

16. The stand of the respondents has led to hostile discrimination against the petitioners, which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution on the face of it. The candidates having secured as low as 59 percentile rankings have been given appointment, may be in district Jaisalmer but then, once the State was required to prepare State-wise merit list, it cannot stick to the first option given by a candidate. If the seats in district Barmer/Jalore have been occupied by the candidates having secured higher marks than the petitioners, the respondents were required to consider the petitioners for other districts, as per the options given by them.

17. Adverting to the argument of Mr. Mehta that the recruitment is already over, this Court is of the considered view that when the respondents themselves have erred, they cannot take an excuse of rights of other selected candidates.

18. The directions given in Priyanka Saini's case (supra) were unequivocal and binding. Respondents' action of