JUDGMENT 1. - Inspite of service, nobody appears for the respondents. The respondents have not cared even to file reply to the writ petition. Such state of affairs should be checked as it causes not only delay in decision of the cases, but adverse orders may also be passed against the Government or its functionary in absence of proper and complete facts. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this matter is fully coved by Bench's decisions of this Court in the case of Dr. P.N. Bhandari (SBCW No. 12/83) and Dr. R.B. Patwa (DBCW No. 198/83) decided on 1.8.88. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was granted sanction of the Governor for study leave w.e.f. 1.7.76 to 5.11.77. After completion of her study leave, the petitioner made a representation to the State Government for treating her study leave as on deputation, but the same was declined. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Government of Rajasthan, Medical and Health Department had ordered deputation period to whole batch of 1980-82, who did their P.G. Course on study leave (Radio-diagnosis). It was also contended that a Division Bench of this Court has directed to grant relief in Dr. RN. Bhandari's case and Dr. R.B. Patwa's case and the same relief is being claimed by the petitioner in the present writ petition. In Dr. P.N. Bhandari and Dr. R.B. Patwa's case, the Division Bench has passed the following order : "M.D. Anaesthesia, M.D. in Radiology and diploma courses cannot be said to be degrees equivalent to D.M. and M.Ch. Thus, the distinction which is sought to be made by the State Government, militates against the statute also. Since the candidates who have been sent for doing M.D. in Anaesthesia, Radiology and diploma courses have been provided the benefit of deputation instead of study leave retrospectively then there is no reason why similar treatment should be denied to the petitioners. WW are constrained to say that such discrimination is seriously violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and it cannot be sustained. In the result, we allow both the writ petitions and direct the respondents to give a similar treatment to the petitioners and other persons who are similarly situate so that they may not be driven to file fresh writ petition and unnecessarily increase litigation. 4. In the result, we allow both the writ petitions and direct the respondents to give a similar treatment to the petitioners and other persons who are similarly situate so that they may not be driven to file fresh writ petition and unnecessarily increase litigation. 4. On behalf of the respondent nothing has been brought on record to deny similar benefit to the petitioner in accordance with the aforesaid judgment. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of deputation in place of study leave and the respondents are directed to give the similar treatment to the petitioner. 5. It is really painful that inspite of a direction given by this Court in Dr. P.N. Bhandari's case, that other persons who are similarly situate be also given similar treatment to avoid unnecessary increase in litigation, the prayer of the petitioner was not considered and decided by the respondents and she has to approach this Court by filing this writ petition. 6. Hence, the respondents are directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- as costs to the petitioner.Writ petition allowed with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. *******