JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the constitutional validity of "Explanation" appended to Rule 29(10) of the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971, whereby the teachers, who are transferred at their own request are placed below the junior most person in the seniority list of the new district/range. The petitioner has also challenged the Circular dated 9th July 1997 (Annex.5), whereby it was directed that a strict compliance be made of 'Explanation' appended to proviso (10) of Rule 29 of the Rules of 1971 and all seniority lists be reviewed/revised as per rules. 3. The constitutional validity of same 'Explanation' was considered by Single Bench of this Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 14380/2010 Smt. Santosh Sharma v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 30.11.2009. The order of Single Bench dated 30.11.2009 was affirmed by us vide judgment dated 10.1.2012 passed in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 41/2010 (Smt. Santosh v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.) . Para Nos. 4 to 8 of above D.B. Judgment are reproduced as under:- "4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that Explanation appended to Proviso (10) to Rule 29 of the Act of 1971 is contrary to provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and it is liable to be struck down being ultra vires to the provisions of the Constitution of India. 5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties in the light of reasons assigned by learned Single Bench for dismissing the writ petition and upholding the Explanation appended to Proviso (10) to Rule 29 of the Rules of 1971 as constitutional. For ready reference, 'Explanation' appended to Proviso (10) to Rule 29 of the Rules of 1971 is reproduced as under: "[Explanation: A person working on the post of [Senior Teachers/Teacher] or equivalent posts when transferred from one district/range to another district/range on his own request shall be placed just below the junior most person in seniority list of the new district/range from the date of taking over the charge in the new district/range and will cease to have any right of his seniority in the district/range from which he has been transferred.]" 6. The above Explanation makes it clear that it is applicable only on those employees, who are transferred from one district/range to another district/range on their own request and not on other employees who are transferred in exigency of service or on administrative ground. Learned Single Bench has dealt with the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner in the impugned order which reads as under: "In the opinion of this Court, submissions made by Counsel are of no substance for the reason that Explanation impugned was added to proviso (10) to R.29 of Rules, 1971 vide notification dated 06/02/1987; and petitioner was aware of the fact that if she seeks transfer from one range to other at her own request, she shall be placed below to the junior most person in the new range from the date of taking over the charge and knowing it fully well, she had submitted her application and got herself transferred on 25/09/1989 (Ann.4); and after her seniority was determined in terms of Explanation to proviso (10) of R.29, it has been assailed after almost two decades. That apart, those having been transferred in the interest of administration or in exigency of service, their lien is always maintained in their parent range in which they were appointed & promoted but persons having been transferred at their own request, their lien is never maintained in the parent rage; on the contrary, their seniority is to be maintained in terms of explanation to proviso (10) to R.29 in the range in which one got transferred at own request; in such circumstances there are no common features and transfers either in the interest of administration or sought at their own request have a reasonable nexus made by rule making authority while adding explanation vide impugned notification dated 06/02/87 for determination of the seniority U/r 29 of Rules, 1971. There may be any reasonable or compelling justification for seeking transfer at own request but the Rule is always tested on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution and not on the facts of each case, That apart, there is a further provision that if some one fore goes promotion either adhoc or on urgent temporary basis, he stands debarred from being considered for promotion for next two years and if employee once fore gos promotion for any cogent reason may be on his compelling circumstances, he cannot claim his promotion for the period during which one has been debarred under Scheme of Rules for the reason that if one considered & having foregone promotion, certainly right of fair consideration of another person being otherwise eligible & interested in seeking promotion, has been jeopardized. At the same time, if person seeking transfer at his own request from one district or range, as the case may be, certainly right of consideration in respect of persons being in queue in their respective range or district, for further promotion is going to be jeopardised and in such manner, names are being interpolated in the existing seniority list being maintained range wise from the date of taking over charge of the post and this fact cannot be ruled out that in absence of impugned provision, one who may not be within zone of consideration for the promotion in parent range or district but by seeking transfer at his own request in another range, may get early promotion; and it appears that to curb such a practice, explanation to proviso (10) to R.29 must have been added vide notification impugned herein. This Court finds that it has got a reasonable nexus which is sought to be achieved and is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution." 7. Reasons assigned by learned Single Bench for upholding constitutional validity of Explanation appended to Proviso (10) to Rule 29 of the Rules of 1971 are absolutely legal and justified. We have also examined the Explanation appended to Proviso (10) to Rule 29 of the Rules of 1971 and we find that it is in consonance with the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In our view, learned Single Bench has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 8. We have also examined the Explanation appended to Proviso (10) to Rule 29 of the Rules of 1971 and we find that it is in consonance with the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In our view, learned Single Bench has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 8. We do not find any merit in this intra Court appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. Stay application also stands dismissed." 4. The point involved in the present writ petition has already been decided by Division Bench in above referred case. Therefore, present case is fully covered by above referred judgment. 5. In view of above discussion, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. The stay application is also dismissed.Writ petition dismissed. *******