JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 1. The respondent department issued advertisement on 8.8.2007 for the post of GNM and the total posts at that time were 6172. The petitioner submitted her application and all relevant documents and after interview, she was selected on the post of GNM and the CMHO, Pali issued appointment order for petitioner on 15.9.2008 and the petitioner joined the post at Government Community Health Center, Rani, District Pali on 6.10.2008 and since then, she is working there. 2. Several writ petitions were filed in this Court to challenge the criteria for preparation of district level merit list as well as different terms and conditions of preparing the merit list. Said writ petitions were allowed and leading case was Dema Ram Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1120/2008 ) which was decided along with other connected matters vide judgment dated 20.2.2008. In Dema Ram's case, directions were issued to the respondent department to prepare the merit list on State level basis by adopting one and same criteria for preparation of the merit list by taking into consideration both the advertisements issued under NHRM scheme. 3. Another relevant judgment was also delivered in Santlal Yadav's case (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.741/2008). Following the directions issued by this Court in the above referred judgments, State level seniority list was prepared on 25.2.2009 for total 6635. 4. The petitioner's contention is that her name is at 3379 and her home district is Jodhpur. The petitioner who was successful already before the decision of this Court in the cases of Dema Ram and Santlal Yadav and already joined the service at Pali is contending that in view of the fact that the petitioner is residing at Jodhpur, therefore, she be accommodated at Jodhpur because of the reason that in merit, the petitioner is ranking higher than the persons who are sought to be given appointment at Jodhpur. It is also submitted that normal practice was adopted of giving posting to the candidates at the place of their choice by decision taken by the respondents themselves. Therefore, the respondents are bound by their own decision to give appointment to the candidates at the place desired by the candidates. It is also submitted that normal practice was adopted of giving posting to the candidates at the place of their choice by decision taken by the respondents themselves. Therefore, the respondents are bound by their own decision to give appointment to the candidates at the place desired by the candidates. It is submitted that the appointments which are sought to be given at Jodhpur are likely to be given on vacant posts and, therefore, the petitioner can without causing any problem to any other persons can be given appointment at Jodhpur. Learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relied upon the order dated 6.6.2009 passed to amend the posting places of above 12 persons. 5. Respondents submitted reply to the writ petition and stated that in view of the directions issued by this Court, State wise merit list was prepared and fresh appointments were given to some persons but without disturbing the persons who have already been posted and have joined the duties at their place of posting. It is submitted that the petitioner has no vested right for posting at a particular post. 6. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. 7. It is not in dispute that large number of writ petitions were filed and were decided by the order of this Court and the State Government in compliance to the directions issued by this Court in the writ petitions mentioned above prepared the State wise merit list. The persons who were initially appointed as their names were there in list even prepared district wise and who joined the places which they offered in spite of the fact that their desired place was different then simply because the entire exercise of preparation of merit list was done by the State Government in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, then the State Government was justified in giving posting to the new candidates whose name find place in the new merit list on vacant posts and it was not necessary for the State Government to undertake any exercise of offering the seats to all persons who already joined the duties on the post where they were posted and reopen all the matters of appointments already given as the few candidates could have been accommodated on the vacant posts. The process of reallocation of the posts is not necessary nor desirable and if is taken again, then that process can only result in multiplicity of proceedings, litigation, complications and wastage of time. 8. Otherwise also, the petitioner wants to take benefit of a decision given in a litigation initiated by other persons otherwise they were satisfied with their place of postings and once they accepted that posting, they have no legal right of posting on the basis of their earlier desire which ceased to exist after their joining the post which was offered. 9. In view of the above reasons, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Writ petition dismissed. *******