JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 2. The petitioners herein are all Teachers Grade-III Level-I working in the respondent Education department. They were initially selected on the very same post pursuant to a selection procedure initiated by the State Government in the year 2011-12. It appears that numerous disputes erupted in the said selection process. Litigation's were filed before this Court by a large number of unsuccessful candidates and even as on date, the controversy regarding RTET marks is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the meantime, while the matters were still pending consideration by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondents initiated yet another selection procedure for the very same posts in the year 2013. The petitioners herein felt that in order to escape complications in their careers which may result from any modification pursuant to the disposal of the litigation, they would be better of by trying for a fresh selection pursuant to the notification issued in the year 2013. 3. All the petitioners claim to have sought permission from their respective employers and thereafter, appeared in the selection procedure and were declared successful. They were given a fixed time limit to join their respective posts pursuant to their selection under the advertisement of 2013. They prayed their respective authorities to relieve them. The petitioners claim that the authorities concerned did not relieve the petitioners but instead advised them to resign from the post if they were desirous to join the new assignment. Accordingly, the petitioners submitted their resignations to the competent authority who accepted the same. 4. Initially, there was a dispute regarding the petitioners not being allowed to join the post. However, thereafter, the authorities have themselves taken a decision to extend the joining time for the petitioners and other similarly situated persons by six months. All the petitioners have joined their respective posts. 5. Another set of fresh recruitees alike the petitioners who were not ready to resign for joining the fresh assignment approached this Court by filing various writ petitions. By interim orders, they were allowed to join their fresh assignments. The writ petitions with the lead case being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2490/2015 (Saroj & Ors. 5. Another set of fresh recruitees alike the petitioners who were not ready to resign for joining the fresh assignment approached this Court by filing various writ petitions. By interim orders, they were allowed to join their fresh assignments. The writ petitions with the lead case being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2490/2015 (Saroj & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) came to be decided finally by this Court by order dated 22.5.2015 with the following directions:- "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." 6. Learned Addl. Advocate General concedes that the controversy involved in the cases at hand is more or less covered by the aforesaid directions. 7. The petitioners herein have raised a grievance that they are entitled to have their previous service counted as continuity in their fresh assignment and thus, necessary directions be issued to that effect. 8. Learned Addl. Advocate General states that the question regarding the petitioners' claim for continuity in service can only be examined by the competent authority in each individual case in reference to Rule 25(2) of the Pension Rules, 1996 and thus, the issue in this regard may be left open for consideration by the competent authority. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners do not object to this proposition. 10. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners do not object to this proposition. 10. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the instant writ petitions deserve to be and are hereby allowed in the following terms:- (1) In the event, any of the petitioners has still not been allowed to join on his fresh assignment, the authority concerned shall forthwith relieve the concerned candidate and allow him to join on his new assignment pursuant to his selection under the advertisement of 2013. (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) 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. (4) The petitioners shall be at liberty to submit an application to the competent authority for counting their previous services with reference to Rule 25(2) of the Pension Rules, 1996. The competent authority shall consider and decide such prayer by passing reasoned orders in accordance with the service Rules. No order as to costs.A copy of this order be placed in each file.Writ Petition Allowed As Above. *******