JUDGMENT : DINESH MEHTA, J. I.A No. 4779/2017. 1. For the reasons stated in the application, particularly as the matter at hand is squarely covered by a judgment dated 27.05.2015 rendered in S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 12837/2013 titled as “Tulsi Bodat v. State of Raj.”, the same is allowed. 2. The matter is taken up for consideration today itself. 3. Mr. Manoj Kasyap, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at the outset submits that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by a judgment dated 27.05.2015 rendered in S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 12837/2013 titled as “Tulsi Bodat v. State of Raj.” in which this Court while relying upon a judgment dated 09.01.2013 rendered in S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 10772/2013 titled as “Indira Kumari Ahari v. State of Rajasthan” held as infra:— “The petitioner claimed consideration for appointment for District Udaipur, but being married to a person belonging to District Dungarpur, her candidature was no considered against the reserved vacancies. The petitioner is admittedly a resident of District Udaipur and merely on the count that she entered into a wedlock with a person belonging to District Dungarpur, her local residency secured by birth has been abandoned. The petitioner, along with application form submitted by her to face process of selection, also annexed a certificate dated 21.03.2006, certifying that Village Tapana is part of Tribal Sub-Plan Area. She also appeared in Rajasthan Teachers Eligibility Test-2011 by declaring herself as a resident of Tapana, as such no reason exists for not treating her a resident of District Uadipur. The petitioner is admittedly a member of Scheduled Tribe and is resident of Tribal Sub-Plan Area. By birth she belongs to District Udaipur and as such, she is a local resident of that district. The respondents, thus, have wrongly denied consideration for appointment to her against the vacancies reserved for the members of Scheduled Tribes (Women) belonging to Tribal Sub-Plan Area of District Udaipur.” 4. Aforesaid judgment rendered in case of Tulsi Bodat (supra) has been affirmed by a Division Bench, vide its judgment dated 17.05.2016 rendered in D.B Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 30/2016 titled as “State of Rajasthan v. Tulsi Bodat”. 5. Dr. P. Dave, learned Additional Government Counsel for the respondents is not in a position to dispute the above referred position of law. 6. In view of above, the present writ petition is allowed. 5. Dr. P. Dave, learned Additional Government Counsel for the respondents is not in a position to dispute the above referred position of law. 6. In view of above, the present writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to issue the order of appointment to the petitioner, if she is otherwise found eligible and meritorious, on the post of Patwari, for whom one post has already been ordered to be kept vacant by this Court vide its order dated 17.10.2013 passed in the present writ petition. 7. The petitioner shall also be entitled for notional benefits from the date of passing the interim order i.e 17.10.2013