Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-Petitioner has assailed order dated 22.04.1994 (Annexure 4) whereby her services were terminated on the premises that she is holder of National Trade Certificate ("NTC") and is not eligible to hold post of Teacher Grade III. She qualified higher secondary school examination, so also one years training course in craft from Gandhi Industrial Training Institute ("ITI"), Kishangarh Renwal, which according to her, was recognized training for appointment at relevant point of time when she applied for the post of Teacher Grade III. 2. She was initially appointed as Teacher Grade III by respondent No. 4 vide order dated 19.07.1985 (Annexure 1) and joined service on 23.07.1985. Her services were terminated by respondents vide order dated 26.09.1988 (Annexure 3) merely on premises that training, which she possessed, was not recognized for appointment as Teacher Grade III. She challenged aforesaid termination in CWP No. 3801/88 before this Court. Her writ petition was dismissed by Single Judge vide order dated 11.04.1989, against which she preferred Special Appeal (Writ) No. 51/89 before Division Bench, which was allowed vide Judgment dated 19.03.1991 - operative part whereof reads as under:- "Consequently, we hereby allow Special Appeal; set aside order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.07.1989 and allow the writ petition of petitioner and the impugned order dated 26.09.1988 (Annexure 7) is quashed & set aside. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to continue in service and if she is not in service she should be reinstated immediately, till regular appointments are made. She will be treated as other similarly placed persons in other Institutions have been treated. Costs made easy." 3. In compliance of aforesaid Judgment , petitioner was reinstated in service on 09.09.1992, and against Judgment of Division Bench of this Court (Supra), no further appeal was preferred by State Government, thereby it attained finality. 4. However, fresh order of termination of petitioner was passed by respondents vide order dated 22.04.1994 (Annexure 4) on the premises that the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Shyamlal Joshi, 1994 (1) SCC 593 , has not considered such incumbents to be eligible who possessed NTC training for the purposes of appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III. The same has been again challenged by petitioner in present petition, which was dismissed earlier by Single Bench on 06.08.1996, against which she preferred Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1109/97 before Division Bench. The same has been again challenged by petitioner in present petition, which was dismissed earlier by Single Bench on 06.08.1996, against which she preferred Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1109/97 before Division Bench. Division Bench vide Judgment dated 15.03.2004 allowed Special Appeal, ibid, and set aside order of Single Bench dated 06.08.1996 and thereby remanded the matter back for consideration by this Court for hearing on merits, with further direction that interim relief granted in Special Appeal & confirmed on 08.07.1998 shall remain force till this writ petition is decided by this Court. In these circumstances, this matter has come up for hearing. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has informed that in view of stay order granted by Division Bench, petitioner is still working as Teacher Grade III, but she has only been fixed at minimum in regular pay scale and has not been granted increments and other benefits. 6. Shri N.K. Bhatt, Counsel for petitioner submits that decision of Apex Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Shyamlal Joshi (Supra), will not be applicable in the facts of present case, particularly when her eligibility has already been examined by this Court in earlier writ petition and thereafter, she was reinstated in service on the qualification of NTC pursuant to decision of this Court (DB) dated 19.03.1991, against which no appeal was further preferred by respondent State Government, her reinstatement in service could not have been questioned by State Government on any ground. It has also been contended that even as per impugned order dated 22.04.1994 (Annexure 4), decision of Apex Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Shyamlal Joshi (Supra), has been made applicable to such employees, who have been appointed after issuance of Circular dated 011.1985, whereas petitioner was appointed much before it on 19.07.1985, so her services otherwise could not have been terminated under the garb of aforesaid Circular which has no application in case of present petitioner. Shri Bhatt in support of his contention, placed reliance upon decision of this Court (DB) in Chhoti Devi vs. State of Rajasthan, 2005 (2) WLC (Raj) 152. 7. Respondents have filed reply to writ petition. Shri Bhatt in support of his contention, placed reliance upon decision of this Court (DB) in Chhoti Devi vs. State of Rajasthan, 2005 (2) WLC (Raj) 152. 7. Respondents have filed reply to writ petition. Shri B.K. Sharma, Deputy Government Advocate for State submitted that once Apex Court has held in State of Rajasthan vs. Shyamlal Joshi (Supra), that teachers who possessed qualification of NTC are not eligible to hold post of Teacher Grade III, no error has been committed in terminating services of petitioner and that apart, in view of clarification made by State Government vide Circular dated 25.05.1994, petitioner cannot be considered to be appointee prior to 011.1985. 8. Having considered rival contentions of parties and pondered over material on record, it is admitted fact that termination earlier made vide order dated 26.09.1988 (Annexure 3) on the premises of NTC qualification being not recognized for appointment to the post of Teacher Grade III, was set aside by this Court (DB) vide Judgment dated 19.03.1991 (Supra), which has attained finality. Therefore, her eligibility, in my opinion, could not have been questioned by respondents. Very premise, on which respondents have based her termination of service vide impugned order dated 22.04.1994, is devoid of any merit. Once Judgment of this Court (DB) attained finality and no appeal was preferred, second order of termination could not have been passed by respondents under the garb of subsequent decision of Apex Court, and the Division Bench of this Court in Chhoti Devi vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra), has examined the same controversy, and finally held in para 12 as under:- "12. The Honble Supreme Court in the present case in its order dated 01.03.1996 as reproduced above, has mentioned that any later Judgment of the Honble Apex Court shall not take away the effect of the Judgment passed in favour of the appellants. The learned Single judge in its impugned order under appeal dated 02.09.1994 has only referred the Judgment given in the case of Shyamlal Joshi (Supra), but has not considered that the appellants earlier writ petition was allowed in the year 1991, which was not challenged and that attained finality which was binding on the respondents, therefore, the special appeals of appellants are liable to be allowed." 9. Thus, in view of Judgment of this Court (Supra), order of termination dated 22.04.2004 deserves to be set aside. Thus, in view of Judgment of this Court (Supra), order of termination dated 22.04.2004 deserves to be set aside. Since petitioner remained in service because of her termination having been stayed by this Court, and in view of the fact that she has continuously working in the cadre of Teacher Grade III and order of her termination is found to be erroneous, she is entitled for all consequential benefits, which she was otherwise entitled for. 10. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. Order of termination dated 22.04.1994 (Annexure 4) is hereby set aside. Respondents are directed to give all consequential benefits flowing from setting aside of her termination, to which she is otherwise entitled for, after taking into consideration of her continuous length of service as per her initial appointment date (23.07.1985) in the cadre of Teacher Grade III. All exercise so as to comply with aforesaid direction be completed within three months. No order as to costs.