JUDGMENT :

ANAND SHARMA, J.

1. All the above writ petitions involve almost similar facts, same cause of action and questions for consideration; therefore, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common order. For convenience, facts stated in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4779/2025 are being taken into consideration.

2. The petitioners have come out a prayer that the respondents be directed to grant the petitioners notional seniority and notional pay fixation with effect from the year 2018-2019 i.e. the year when the other similarly situated persons were appointed on the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-II.

3. It is stated that one advertisement was issued in the year 2016, whereby applications were invited from all eligible candidates for recruitment on the post of Teacher Grade-III on as many as 4960 vacancies. It is submitted that although, Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (for short ‘the Rules of 1971’) provides for preparation of waiting list to the extent of 50% of the vacancies advertised, yet such list was not prepared at the relevant time and despite the fact that number of candidates, who were included in the main select list and were also offered appointment, did not join, only on account of the fact that the respondents omitted to prepare waiting list, appointments were not given to the petitioners, whereas persons, whose names were included in the main select list were appointed in the year 2018.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under these circumstances, finding no other alternative, the petitioners approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17360/2018 (Urmila Devi & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.). The said writ petition was allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the respondents were directed to prepare waiting list and to operate the same in accordance with the rules. The said judgment was put to challenge by the respondents by way of filing D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.924/2019, in which respondents could not succeed and the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 07.01.2020. It is also submitted that the respondents although challenged the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court by way of filing SLP for the Hon’ble Supreme Court, yet it was withdrawn. Hence, the judgment delivered by Single Bench of this Court in the case of Urmila Devi (supra) has attained finality. Learned counsel further submits that after loosing at all the levels, the respondents issued order dated 02.11.2021, whereby after preparing the waiting list and operating the same in compliance of judgment delivered by this Court, the petitioners were appointed on the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-II, yet instead of granting the benefits to the petitioners from the same year and date on which the other persons, who were selected and appointed pursuant to same advertisement, petitioners were allowed benefit of pay fixation and seniority only from their date of appointment.

5. Learned counsel submits that the appointment of the petitioners was delayed only on account of non compliance of mandatory rule with regard to preparation of waiting list, which is solely attributable to the respondents and such omission was also not approved by this Court in the judgments referred hereinabove, therefore, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer only on account of delay caused by the respondents and they are entitled for the same benefits which have been given to the others, who were appointed pursuant to same advertisement.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the writ petitions and submitted that the claim put forward by the petitioners is totally misconceived and their writ petitions is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that admittedly, the petitioners were not selected in the main select list and only after judgment delivered by this court, a waiting list was prepared and their names were included in the waiting list. Learned cou