JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This bunch of writ petitions is preferred by the petitioners having an identical cause of action and praying for a common relief and is thus being decided by this common order. 3. The petitioners herein applied for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III in pursuance of an advertisement/notification dated 11.5.2011 in a recruitment process conducted by Panchayati Raj Department for filling up vacancies of the posts of Teacher Grade-III in Primary and Upper Primary Schools. The selection test for both levels was conducted on 2.6.2012 and the result thereof was declared on 25.8.2012. It is undisputed that the petitioners herein were duly selected in the said selection process and were given appointment orders of varying dates. 4. It appears that multiple litigations involving different controversies viz., eligibility of the candidates who had secured below 60% marks in RTET examination, faulty answer keys etc. were filed in the Courts in relation to the above selection process. The lead case in a bunch of writ petitions filed in the below 60% RTET eligibility criterion controversy was Vikas Kumar Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No.13488/2012) which was decided by the Single Bench of this Court on 10.9.2012 . The appeals preferred against the said order were decided by the Division Bench on 2.7.2013 and the S.L.P. preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the order passed by the Division Bench is reportedly still pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court being S.L.P. No.23178-23182/2013. Consequently, the authorities imposed a condition in the appointment Saroj & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. And other 165 connected writ petitions orders issued to the petitioners stipulating that their appointments shall remain subject to the final outcome of the litigation. 5. Another controversy in relation to the faulty question papers/answer keys in the very same selection process was examined by this Court in a bunch of writ petitions led by SBCWP No.10622/2014 (Ramdhan Kumawat v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and this court directed fresh evaluation of the answers keys by order dated 18.11.2013 and the select lists are likely to be revised thereby also. The said judgment was challenged in a bunch of special appeals led by Manju Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.35/2014) . The said judgment was challenged in a bunch of special appeals led by Manju Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.35/2014) . Whilst deciding the above bunch of special appeals, the Division Bench made the following observations which have a material bearing on the controversy involved in the instant writ petitions:- "The State Government will be at liberty to pass fresh orders, after revising the results and adjusting equities protecting the interest of the appellants-petitioners, to the extent that they will not be ousted from the select list and will be placed as far as possible at the bottom of the revised select list." 6. The petitioners claim to have completed satisfactory periods of probation but are not being confirmed in spite thereof in view of the pending litigation. In the meantime, another advertisement came to be issued by the Panchayati Raj Department on 11.8.2013 inviting applications from aspiring candidates for the posts of Teacher Grade-III. The petitioners, with the objective of moving out of troubled waters and for getting appointments in a nearby area of their respective native places by improving their merit, sought permission and appeared in the selection process for the posts advertised under the said advertisement. The result of the competitive examination was declared by the respondents on 1.1.2015 and the petitioners herein were declared successful and appointment orders were also issued in their favour. They were posted at different schools specified in their respective appointment orders. The petitioners approached the competent authority for relieving them from the earlier posting places so that they could join service at the places of their fresh appointment as Teachers Grade-III. The authorities, however, allegedly refused permission to the petitioners for joining on the new posts and allegedly pressurised them to resign and insisted that only after resigning from the earlier posts, they could be allowed to join the new service. Assailing this action of the authorities, the petitioners have approached this Court praying for a direction to the respondents to relieve them from earlier postings so as to enable them to join their new post pursuant to their selection in the fresh selection process and for counting the length of service rendered by them in their earlier assignment for all available service benefits. Allegations of arbitrary and discriminatory treatment have been levelled in the writ petitions. Allegations of arbitrary and discriminatory treatment have been levelled in the writ petitions. It is also asserted that, despite the petitioners having completed a satisfactory period of probation in their earlier service tenure, neither they are being confirmed nor they have been afforded benefits of seniority, increments and fixation though they are lawfully entitled as per the Rajasthan Service Rules. It is alleged that the benefits accruing to the petitioners under Rules 24, 25, 26, 27 and 27A of the RSR are being withheld and denied by the authorities without any justification. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the State has approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLP in the case of Vikas Kumar Agarwal for challenging the order dated 2.7.2013 passed by the Division Bench which, if allowed to stand, would require wholesale changes and revisions in the merit list and major upheavals in the order of appointment of the aspirants in the selection process. Thus, as per them, the State has gone in SLP against the Division Bench order so as to defend the original select list and thereby, indirectly protecting the petitioners' position as per the original merit list. Therefore, they contend that the State has nothing to gain by opposing the prayer made in the present petitions, which if accepted would result in vacation of the posts occupied by the petitioners and consequently, would leave the field open for the State for making adjustments in the original select list, should the same require revision pursuant to the final outcome of the above SLP. 8. The learned counsel representing the petitioners state that whatever the outcome of S.L.P. be, in any event, the petitioners not having procured appointment by practicing fraud or misrepresentation cannot be ousted from service even if the result is revised as a consequence of the exercises required to be conducted in light of the orders passed in the cases of Ramdhan Kumawat and Vikas Kumar Agarwal (supra) and at best they will be required to be placed at the bottom of revised select list if their merit is disturbed. 9. Learned counsel relied upon the following excerpts of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh and ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh and ors. 9. Learned counsel relied upon the following excerpts of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh and ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh and ors. reported in AIR 2013 SC 3474 and contend that, despite the revision of the result as an outcome of the judicial verdicts in the litigations preferred by the unsuccessful candidates, the petitioners who were regularly selected and substantially appointed against civil posts cannot be ousted from service in any eventuality because there is no allegation that the petitioners' selection suffers from any fraud or misrepresentation:- "1 2 3. The appellants before us (in SLP (C) Nos. 26341-26342 of 2011 and 26349 of 2011) are the 26 candidates aggrieved by the cancellation of the first merit list and the redrawal of the second revised merit list by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (for short "respondent-Board"), whereby their appointments to the aforesaid posts have been cancelled. 4. The facts in a nutshell are as under:- On 18.09.2006, an advertisement inviting applications for recruitment to 380 posts of Subedars, Platoon Commanders and Sub-Inspectors in the respondent-State was issued by the Police Headquarters, Chhattisgarh. For the said purpose, the Preliminary Examination was conducted on 24.12.2006 and the successful candidates thereat were called for the Main Examination held in two parts as Paper I and II on 04.02.2007 and 05.02.2007, respectively. After conducting physical examination and personal interviews, the final merit list of candidates was published on 08.04.2008, whereby all the appellants herein were selected. Based on the said merit list, the appointment letters were issued to the selected candidates including the appellants on various dates between 21.08.2008 and 15.09.2008. In the meanwhile, the Inspector General of Police and the respondent-Board received complaints in respect of defects/mistakes in several questions of the Main Examination Papers. The respondent-Board constituted an Expert Committee to inquire into the complaints. Upon examination of the two Papers, two sets of defects were noticed: (a) eight questions in Paper II itself were incorrect and (b) model answers for evaluation of answer scripts to another eight questions of Paper II were incorrect. The respondent-Board directed for deletion of the first set of eight questions in Paper II and preparation of correct model answers key for objective questions in Papers I and II and accordingly carried out re-evaluation of the answer scripts of the candidates. The respondent-Board directed for deletion of the first set of eight questions in Paper II and preparation of correct model answers key for objective questions in Papers I and II and accordingly carried out re-evaluation of the answer scripts of the candidates. On 27.06.2009 a new revised merit list was published wherein the names of twenty six appellants did not figure at all and accordingly, the appointment of the appellants were cancelled by the respondent-State. 5. At the time of publication of the revised merit list, the appellants were already undergoing training along with other candidates who were selected in the first list. The appellants aggrieved by the cancellation of the aforesaid appointment in the wake of revised merit list filed several Writ Petitions before the learned single Judge inter alia challenging the validity of the revised merit list on the ground that decision of re-evaluation by the respondent-Board was arbitrary and irrational and therefore the said list requires to be quashed. 6. The learned single Judge while entertaining the Writ Petitions had issued an interim order directing the respondent-State not to take any coercive steps against the appellants and further to allow them to continue their training programme. The learned single Judge has observed that a substantial question of public importance has arisen in the matter and therefore, referred the matter to the Division Bench with a request to consider and decide the following question of law of public importance: "Whether the VYAPM (respondent-Board) after publication of the select list and passing of the appointment orders also on the basis of evaluation of questions, could have done the exercise of re-evaluating the answers after editing and reframing answers, and prepare the second select list for fresh recruitment of the candidates, cancelling the first select list?" 7. The Division Bench has delved into merits of the matter at length and analysed the arguments advanced by both the parties. The Division Bench has noticed the pattern of the Main Examination to include two separate papers: Paper I comprising of both objective and subjective type questions 7 and 4 in number in Hindi and English languages, respectively and Paper II comprising of 150 objective-type questions of General Knowledge. The Division Bench has noticed the pattern of the Main Examination to include two separate papers: Paper I comprising of both objective and subjective type questions 7 and 4 in number in Hindi and English languages, respectively and Paper II comprising of 150 objective-type questions of General Knowledge. Further that the Expert Committee constituted by the respondent-Board examined both Paper I and II and found irregularities only in respect of the eight incorrect objective questions of Paper II and model answers to another eight questions in model answers key of Paper II, pursuant to which the respondent-Board re-evaluated Paper II and only objective questions of Paper I on basis of fresh model answers key and in toto only sixteen questions and answers of Paper II were interfered with upon such re-evaluation. The eight incorrect questions were deleted and their marks were distributed on the pro-rata basis in accordance with Clause 14 of the Examination Conduct Rules (for short "the Rules") of the respondent-Board and the other eight questions, answers to which were incorrect in the first model answers key were re-evaluated on the basis of new model answers key and marks were awarded accordingly. The Division Bench has observed that since all the questions so reevaluated were objective type carrying fixed marks for only one correct answer, the possibility of difference in marking scheme or prejudice during reevaluation does not arise and therefore has concluded that no irregularity or illegality could be said to have crept in the manner and method of re-evaluation carried out by the respondent-Board and that the said decision of re-evaluation was justified, balanced and harmonious and has not caused any injustice to the candidates and therefore cannot be interfered with unless found arbitrary, unreasonable or mala fide which is not the case at hand. In consequence of the aforesaid conclusion, the Division Bench has thought it fit to uphold the cancellation of appointments of the appellants qua the first list and accordingly dismissed the writ petitions. 8. It is the correctness or otherwise of the said judgment and order passed by the High Court which is before us in these appeals by special leave. 9 .... 10 .... 11 .... 12. 8. It is the correctness or otherwise of the said judgment and order passed by the High Court which is before us in these appeals by special leave. 9 .... 10 .... 11 .... 12. In these appeals what falls for our consideration is whether the decision of the respondent-Board in directing re-evaluation of the answer scripts has caused any prejudice to the appellants appointed qua the first merit list, dated 08.04.2008. 13 .... 14 .... 15 .... 16 .... 17. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case the decision of reevaluation by the respondent-Board was a valid decision which could not be said to have caused any prejudice, whatsoever, either to the appellants or to the candidates selected in the revised merit list and therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the High Court to the aforesaid extent. 18. It is brought to our notice that in view of the interim orders passed by the learned single Judge the appellants have now completed their training and have been in service for more than three years. Therefore the only question which survives for our consideration and decision is whether after having undergone training and assumed charge at their place of posting the 26 appellants be ousted from service on the basis of cancellation of their appointment qua the revised merit list. 19. Shri Rao would submit that the case of these appellants requires sympathetic consideration by this Court, since the appointment of appellants on the basis of a properly conducted competitive examination cannot be said to have been affected by any malpractice or other extraneous consideration or misrepresentation on their part. The ouster of 26 appellants from service after having successfully undergone training and serving the respondent-State for more than three years now would cause undue hardship to them and ruin their lives and careers. He would further submit that an irretrievable loss in terms of life and livelihood would be caused to eight appellants amongst them who have now become over aged and have also lost the opportunity to appear in the subsequent examinations. He would place reliance upon the decision of this Court in Rajesh Kumar and Ors. He would further submit that an irretrievable loss in terms of life and livelihood would be caused to eight appellants amongst them who have now become over aged and have also lost the opportunity to appear in the subsequent examinations. He would place reliance upon the decision of this Court in Rajesh Kumar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., 2013(3) SCALE 393 : (2013 AIR SCW 4309) wherein this Court has directed the respondent-State to re-evaluate the answer scripts on the basis of correct model answers key and sympathetically considered the case of such candidates who, after having being appointed in terms of erroneous evaluation and having served the State for considerable length of time, would not find place in the fresh merit list drawn after re-evaluation and directed the respondent-State against ousting of such candidates and further that they be placed at the bottom of the fresh merit list. 20. The pristine maxim of fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant (fraud and justice never dwell together) has never lost its temper over the centuries and it continues to dwell in spirit and body of service law jurisprudence. It is settled law that no legal right in respect of appointment to a said post vests in a candidate who has obtained the employment by fraud, mischief, misrepresentation or mala fide.(See: District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and another v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, (1990) 3 SCC 655 , P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath and others, (1994) 1 SCC 1 : ( AIR 1994 SC 853 : 1994 AIR SCW 243) and Union of India and others v. M. Bhaskaran, 1995 Suppl (4) SCC 100) : ( AIR 1996 SC 686 : 1995 AIR SCW 4703) .It is also settled law that a person appointed erroneously on a post must not reap the benefits of wrongful appointment jeopardising the interests of the meritorious and worthy candidates. However, in cases where a wrongful or irregular appointment is made without any mistake on the part of the appointee and upon discovery of such error or irregularity the appointee is terminated, this Court has taken a sympathetic view in the light of various factors including bona fide of the candidate in such appointment and length of service of the candidate after such appointment (See: Vinodan T. and Ors. v. University of Calicut and Ors. v. University of Calicut and Ors. (2002) 4 SCC 726 : ( AIR 2002 SC 1885 : 2002 AIR SCW 2025) ; State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi and Ors. (2006) 1 SCC 667 ) : (2006 AIR SCW 875) . 21. In Girjesh Shrivastava and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors., (2010) 10 SCC 707 : (2010 AIR SCW 7001) , the High Court had invalidated the rule prescribing selection procedure which awarded grace marks of 25 per cent and age relaxation to the candidates with three years' long non-formal teaching experiences as a consequence of which several candidates appointed as teachers at the formal education institutions under the said rule stood ousted. This Court while concurring with the observations made by the High Court kept in view that upon rectification of irregularities in appointment after a considerable length of time an order for cancellation of appointment would severely affect economic security of a number of candidates and observed as follows:- "28. ...Most of them were earlier teaching in Non-formal education centers, from where they had resigned to apply in response to the advertisement. They had left their previous employment in view of the fact that for their three year long teaching experiences, the interview process in the present selection was awarding them grace marks of 25 per cent. It had also given them a relaxation of 8 years with respect to their age. Now, if they lose their jobs as a result of High Court's order, they would be effectively unemployed as they cannot even revert to their earlier jobs in the Non-formal education centers, which have been abolished since then. This would severely affect the economic security of many families. Most of them are between the age group of 35-45 years, and the prospects for them of finding another job are rather dim. Some of them were in fact awaiting their salary rise at the time of quashing of their appointment by the High Court." Therefore, mindful of the aforesaid circumstances this Court directed non-ouster of the candidates appointed under the invalidated rule. 22. In Union of India (UOI) and Anr. Some of them were in fact awaiting their salary rise at the time of quashing of their appointment by the High Court." Therefore, mindful of the aforesaid circumstances this Court directed non-ouster of the candidates appointed under the invalidated rule. 22. In Union of India (UOI) and Anr. v. Narendra Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 750 : (AIR 2008 (Supp) 240 : 2008 AIR SCW 109) this Court considered the age of the employee who was erroneously promoted and the duration of his service on the promoted post and the factor of retiring from service on attaining the age of superannuation and observed as follows:- "31. The last prayer on behalf of respondent, however, needs to be sympathetically considered. The respondent is holding the post of Senior Accountant (Functional) since last seventeen years. He is on the verge of retirement, so much so, that only few days have remained. He will be reaching at the age of superannuation by the end of this month i.e. December 31, 2007. In our view, therefore, it would not be appropriate now to revert the respondent to the post of Accountant for very short period. We, therefore, direct the appellants to continue the respondent as Senior Accountant (Functional) till he reaches the age of superannuation i.e. upto December 31, 2007. At the same time, we hold that since the action of the Authorities was in accordance with Statutory Rules, an order passed by the Deputy Accountant-General cancelling promotion of the respondent and reverting him to his substantive post of Accountant was legal and valid and the respondent could not have been promoted as Senior Accountant, he would be deemed to have retired as Accountant and not as Senior Accountant (Functional) and his pensionary and retiral benefits would be fixed accordingly by treating him as Accountant all through out. 32. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. Though the respondent is allowed to continue on the post of Senior Accountant (Functional) till he reaches the age of retirement i.e. December 31, 2007 and salary paid to him in that capacity will not be recovered, his retiral benefits will be fixed not as Senior Accountant (Functional) but as Accountant. In the facts and circumstances of case, there shall be no order as to costs." 23. In the facts and circumstances of case, there shall be no order as to costs." 23. This Court in Gujarat State Deputy Executive Engineers' Association v. State of Gujarat and Ors., 1994 Supp (2) SCC 591 although recorded a finding that appointments given under the 'wait list' were not in accordance with law but refused to set aside such appointments in view of length of service (five years and more). 24. In Buddhi Nath Chaudhary and Ors. v. Akhil Kumar and Ors., (2001) 2 SCR 18 : ( AIR 2001 SC 1176 : 2001 AIR SCW 1025) , even though the appointments were held to be improper, this Court did not disturb the appointments on the ground that the incumbents had worked for several years and had gained experience and observed (Para 6 of AIR, AIR SCW): "We have extended equitable considerations to such selected candidates who have worked on the posts for a long period." (See: M.S. Mudhol (Dr.) and Anr. v. S.D. Halegkar and Ors., (1993) II LLJ 1159 (SC) and Tridip Kumar Dingal and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors., (2009) 1 SCC 768 ) : (AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 824) 25.Admittedly, in the instant case the error committed by the respondent-Board in the matter of evaluation of the answer scripts could not be attributed to the appellants as they have neither been found to have committed any fraud or misrepresentation in being appointed qua the first merit list nor has the preparation of the erroneous model answer key or the specious result contributed to them. Had the contrary been the case, it would have justified their ouster upon re-evaluation and deprived them of any sympathy from this Court irrespective of their length of service. 26.In our considered view, the appellants have successfully undergone training and are efficiently serving the respondent-State for more than three years and undoubtedly their termination would not only impinge upon the economic security of the appellants and their dependants but also adversely affect their careers. This would be highly unjust and grossly unfair to the appellants who are innocent appointees of an erroneous evaluation of the answer scripts. However, their continuation in service should neither give any unfair advantage to the appellants nor cause undue prejudice to the candidates selected qua the revised merit list. This would be highly unjust and grossly unfair to the appellants who are innocent appointees of an erroneous evaluation of the answer scripts. However, their continuation in service should neither give any unfair advantage to the appellants nor cause undue prejudice to the candidates selected qua the revised merit list. 27.Accordingly, we direct the respondent-State to appoint the appellants in the revised merit list placing them at the bottom of the said list. The candidates who have crossed the minimum statutory age for appointment shall be accommodated with suitable age relaxation. (Emphasis supplied) 28.We clarify that their appointment shall for all intents and purpose be fresh appointment which would not entitle the appellants to any back wages, seniority or any other benefit based on their earlier appointment." They, therefore, urged that the writ petitions deserve acceptance and the respondents be directed to regularise the petitioners on their post on strength of the length of service put in by them and to extend all consequential service benefits to the petitioners by counting the said length of service and also to direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to join on their new posts with continuity in service. 10. Per contra, learned Addl. Advocate General states that the State Government would be put in a great predicament and practical difficulty, if, pursuant to the revision of the results as a consequence of the judicial verdicts, the petitioners are ousted from the revised merit list and yet they are required to be continued in service. They contend that in such a situation, the number of available seats will be exceeded by number of incumbents and thus, the very conditions of the selection process will be distorted in as much as, the recruitment would then be in excess of the advertised vacancies causing legal and logistical complications. He, therefore, urged that the fate of service put in by the petitioners pursuant to their initial appointment under the questioned selection process of the year 2011 has to be kept dependent upon the final outcome of the S.L.P. pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vikas Kumar Agarwal's case and the consequences ensuing therefrom. He thus prayed that no interference is called for in the instant writ petitions and the matters should be adjourned sine-die awaiting the result of S.L.P. filed in the case of Vikas Kumar Agarwal (supra). 11. He thus prayed that no interference is called for in the instant writ petitions and the matters should be adjourned sine-die awaiting the result of S.L.P. filed in the case of Vikas Kumar Agarwal (supra). 11. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 12. It is undisputed case of the respondent State that the petitioners were selected on their own merit after facing open competition in the questioned selection process without any allegation of fraud or misrepresentation. The petitioners are in no manner responsible for the litigations which cropped up in the questioned selection process on issues involving faulty question papers/answer keys/ relaxation of the qualifying marks in the eligibility criterion. The petitioners were duly qualified for being appointed as Teachers Grade-III and secured sufficient number of marks so as to stand in merit and were lawfully appointed against the advertised posts. The State unilaterally issued appointment orders in their favour. They have duly discharged their duty for a period in excess of two years Thus, in view of the above quoted observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh (supra) as well as the observations made by the Division Bench in Manju Choudhary. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.35/2014) while examining this very selection process, the petitioners cannot be ousted from service merely because of revision in the merit list owing to subsequent developments cropping up due to judicial directions. 13. In the case of Vikas Pratap Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was seized of a situation wherein, upon receiving complaints, the appointing authority itself took a decision for revaluation of the answer sheets, and thereupon, the result as well as merit list of the questioned selection process were revised and the concerned 26 petitioners were ousted from the zone of consideration. They were allowed to continue the training programme under the interim orders of the Courts. In order to balance the equities, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that the State would appoint the petitioners therein in the revised merit list placing them at the bottom of list. They were allowed to continue the training programme under the interim orders of the Courts. In order to balance the equities, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that the State would appoint the petitioners therein in the revised merit list placing them at the bottom of list. In that background, the Hon'ble Supreme court further directed that their appointments would be for all intents and purpose fresh appointments which would not entitle them any back wages, seniority or any other benefit based on their earlier appointments.In the present case, the possible revision of the results is foreseen not only because of the revaluation process but is also likely by inclusion of new incumbents who were previously ousted because they did not possess the requisite eligibility. The question of back wages is not relevant in the present controversy in as much as, the petitioners, who were allowed to join the posts as a result of the conscious decision taken by the State, have already served on their respective posts for more than two years pursuant to their appointment and have received regular salary etc. In view of the observations made at paras 26, 27 & 28 of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh (supra), the petitioners, upon joining their fresh appointments would definitely not be entitled to claim any seniority on the strength of the earlier length of service. However, it may be noted that the Supreme Court deprived the petitioners before it of various service benefits on the basis of possible prejudice to the selected candidates, who stood higher in merit. In the present controversy, the question of prejudice does not arise because the petitioners' selection and joining the posts in the new process would govern their seniority which would be decided by their merit and thus, the observations made in Vikas Pratap Singh's case would have to be read in context of the facts of that case. Furthermore, as on date, it is not even the case of the State that the petitioners are immediately being ousted from the original merit list by revision of results owing to revaluation or by inclusion of the candidates whose cases are under consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikas Kumar Agarwal (supra). Therefore, the probable ouster of the petitioners from the original merit list is yet only under contemplation. 14. Therefore, the probable ouster of the petitioners from the original merit list is yet only under contemplation. 14. The question which this Court is required to answer is as to whether, the length of service put in by the petitioners in their earlier posting can be counted as continuity in service for fixation, increments, etc. and whether the advantage thereof can be given to the petitioners despite joining a fresh assignment pursuant to the selection process of 2013. The Rajasthan Service Rules provide exhaustive guidelines in this regard and thus, the Rules would govern the rights of the parties on this issue. In the meantime, by way of the significant subsequent development i.e. the petitioners' selection in the fresh advertisement, the situation has been altered and, therefore, the claim of continuity in service, consequent confirmation, fixation and increments etc. would be required to be governed by the applicable Service Rules. 15. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the instant writ petitions deserve to be and are hereby allowed in the following terms:- (1) If the petitioners have not been relieved till date from their earlier assignment for joining on the post of Teacher Grade-III pursuant to their selection in the new selection process of the year 2013, the authorities shall forthwith relieve them and allow them to join at their respective fresh posting places. The period of delay in joining, if any, shall be relaxed with the outer date being the date of reopening of the Government schools after the ongoing summer vacation. (2) The service put in by the petitioners in their earlier assignment shall not be counted towards seniority. Their seniority shall be counted from the date of joining the post. (3) This order shall not govern the cases of such candidates who resigned from the earlier assignment for joining the new post. (4) The claim of the petitioners for counting the length of service in the previous assignment for the purposes of the service benefits viz., regularisation, fixation, increments etc. shall be governed by the applicable Service Rules. 16. Stay petitions are disposed of. 17. No order as to costs. 18. A copy of this order be placed in each file.Writ petition allowed as above. *******