Judgment K.S. Rathore, J.-Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Class IV on daily wage basis. After passing of the Secondary School Examination in the year 1977 he was promoted on the post of LDC. Thereafter, the post of House Keeper was created in the year 1981 in the Circuit House and State Guest House and being the post of same pay scale the work of House Keeper was being taken and the salary of the post of LDC/House Keeper was being paid since then. 2. Since, the petitioner was not regularized on the post of LDC/House Keeper the petitioner preferred a writ petition which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 224/1991 Govind Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., and same was allowed vide Judgment dated 112.1993 and it was directed by this Court that - “the petitioner shall get all consequential benefits including reinstatement in service and the respondent shall consider the candidature of petitioner for regularization of his service by deeming him to be eligible for appointment for the post of House Keeper and if the petitioner is found suitable, he should be given appointment with effect from the date from the person junior to him have been given regular appointment. 3. Against the aforesaid Judgment , the respondent State preferred a special appeal which was registered as D.B. Special Appeal No. 13/1995 wherein the Division Bench of this Court has observed as under:- “We are constrained to hold in the facts and circumstances of the case that the learned Single Judge has ignored the appropriate provisions of rules and has not construed the eligibility of the writ petition in a correct manner by ignoring the contentions as made by the State Government. We are of the considered view that the writ petition is not entitled to the relief in the manner as prayed for. We make it clear that we do not want that his services should in any manner be dispensed with but then, he should, as suggested by the learned Additional Advocate General, work as daily rated Class III employee and whenever there would be a vacancy for a substantive post of LDC. He would be considered for the same ignoring his age bar in this regard. He would be considered for the same ignoring his age bar in this regard. Since, the order impugned as passed by the learned Single Judge was not stayed by the appeal Court, we think it just and proper that the salaries as paid by the State Government to the writ petitioner-respondent, need not be reimbursed by him. We however, make it clear that in case the petitioners case for absorption on the post of LDC. Is to be considered by the State Government afresh, the writ petitioner has to satisfy the requisite conditions, therefore, in accordance with law”. “With these observations we set aside the order impugned as passed by the learned Single Judge and modify the order as per directions given hereinbefore and allow the appeal to the extent as observed by us. No order as to costs.” 4. Despite of the Judgment passed by the Division Bench the case of the petitioner was not considered and was also not absorbed on the post of LDC and the petitioner under the pressure accepted the appointment on the post of Class-IV and services of the petitioner was regularized on the post of Class-IV from the date of joining. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has given several illustration regarding similarly situated persons who were given appointment on the post of House Keeper. Since, similar treatment was not given to the petitioner, then he served a legal notice for demand of justice through his Counsel and ultimately preferred this writ petition and more particularly it was stated that 13 pump drivers have been absorbed on the post of House Keeper while granting the relaxation in their educational/technical qualification under Rule 10 of Rule 1969 and the junior persons namely; Pushpa, Anil Mathur, Anup Singh, Shankar Saini, Ram Behari Sharma and Santosh Kumawat have been regularized on the post of House Keeper without holding any screening and written test or any short of test and more over the above named persons were not possessing the requisite qualification so as enable and to hold them suitable and eligible to the post of House Keeper. Therefore, discrimination and distinction has been made in a utter prejudicial manner against the petitioner whereby the petitioner was left from regularization from the House Keeper as the petitioner was also working on the post of House Keeper. 6. Therefore, discrimination and distinction has been made in a utter prejudicial manner against the petitioner whereby the petitioner was left from regularization from the House Keeper as the petitioner was also working on the post of House Keeper. 6. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, it is no doubt that the case of the petitioner is not considered at par with the persons similarly situated for appointment on the post of House Keeper as the petitioner is regularly discharging duty on the post of House Keeper and he has been deprived from his legitimate right. In view of this I deem it proper to direct the respondents to appoint him on the post of House Keeper from the date his junior persons are given appointment on the said post and he will be entitled to get all consequential benefits from the date of his appointment. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed.