ORDER : VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA, J. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that identical controversy has already been raised, considered and adjudicated upon by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in a batch of writ applications lead case being S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 10829/2015: Manju Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan, vide order dated 10th December, 2015, after affording an opportunity of hearing to learned counsel for the respondents, observing thus: “It is not in dispute that after selection and appointment on various posts in the Education Department, posting was to be given in accordance with the guidelines formulated by the State Government. As per the guidelines, meritorious candidates were to be adjusted in their home district subject to availability of the post. The allegations have been made by the petitioners for violation of the merit position of the candidates. It is submitted that less meritorious candidates have been adjusted in a district to which they belong thus there is violation of the guidelines. I find that when guidelines have been framed by the government to give preference to the merit, it is required to be applied. Learned Additional Advocate General has contested the case and stated that merit list has not been violated. After considering the submissions, these writ petitions are disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider case of the petitioners in reference to the merit position and if they find that any candidate with less merit has been adjusted in the district he/she belongs, the government would rectify the mistake or error, if any. For consideration of the case of each candidate, petitioners are directed to submit representation to the non-petitioners within 15 days containing not only merit position of the petitioners but the name of those candidates who have been posted in their home district despite lower in merit. On receipt of the representation, the government would examine it and if a mistake or error is found, they would immediately correct it by giving/changing the posting of the candidate/s without affecting their service benefits. So far as benefit of reservation while giving posting is concerned, it is not permissible. The reservation is provided in appointment and not for posting. In fact, there is no contest on the aforesaid issue. So far as benefit of reservation while giving posting is concerned, it is not permissible. The reservation is provided in appointment and not for posting. In fact, there is no contest on the aforesaid issue. In view of aforesaid, it is directed that while giving posting, non-petitioners would not provide any reservation for it, rather, it would be for appointment only. They would accordingly give posting strictly in accordance with the guidelines. Before parting with the judgment, it is necessary to observe that number of cases are coming to the court alleging ignorance of merit while giving posting and other related issues which may be of transfer. This type of litigation is causing burden on the court apart from loss to the public exchequer in the form of payment of TA/DA. Even working of the Teachers is affected on challenge to the order of posting or transfer, if interim order is passed in favour of the petitioner/s. It ultimately affect studies of the students in those schools. To come out from the aforesaid, the government was directed to evolve a policy and onwards transfer/posting should be given strictly in accordance therewith. Learned AAG submits that the government has already framed a policy and it would be finalised after making scrutiny of the objections. The government is directed that after making scrutiny and finalisation of the policy, they would make endevour to come out with the legislation in the form of rules as has been done by other States to avoid any violation of the rules while making transfers/posting. It is to avoid allegations of arbitrariness at any level and onwards posting would be made as per rules evolved by the government. To see compliance, let these disposed of writ petitions be listed before this court on 20.1.2016 Accordingly, the writ applications stand disposed off, in terms as aforesaid.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further prays that the instant writ application be disposed of in terms of the order in the case of Manju Agarwal (supra). 3. In view of the statement made; the instant writ application stands disposed off in terms of the order in the case of Manju Agarwal (supra). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further prays that the instant writ application be disposed of in terms of the order in the case of Manju Agarwal (supra). 3. In view of the statement made; the instant writ application stands disposed off in terms of the order in the case of Manju Agarwal (supra). 4. Needless to observe that the State-respondents would do the needful and carry out the necessary exercise in order to ensure compliance of this order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six weeks from the date, a certified copy of the order is presented. 5. Once the controversy has been adjudicated upon and attained finality; it is expected from the State-respondents to do the needful and accord benefit/relief to identically placed persons, without compelling individuals, who are identically situated to institute writ applications; for such an attitude of the State Government not only generates avoidable litigation but also costs on the public exchequer. 6. With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ application stands disposed off.