JUDGMENT : This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the judgment dated 09.03.2017 passed by learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3495/2014. 2. By the judgment impugned, learned Single Bench while accepting the petition for writ directed the respondents to provide appointment to the respondent-petitioner within a period of two months from the date of order with all benefits including monetary benefits w.e.f. 29.07.2008. A direction is further given to pay cost of Rs.2,00,000/- each by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission as well as State Government to the petitioner to satisfy the pain and agony faced by him. A direction is further given to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan and the Chairman, Rajasthan Public Service Commission to take necessary steps to identify the airing officials responsible for not giving appointment to the respondent-petitioner, despite his entitlement. 3. Learned Senior Advocate, Shri JP Joshi appearing on behalf of Rajasthan Public Service Commission submits that before filing the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3495/2014 the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing a petition for writ bearing No.4743/2006 that came to be accepted on 29.07.2008 with a direction to consider case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-III subject to existence of unfilled vacancies within one year during currency of the merit list (select list) as per the rules applicable. A direction was further given to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission to recommend the name of the petitioner (respondent) for the purpose of appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III as per his selection for the vacancy that remained unfilled for the purpose State Government was supposed to ascertain the existence of the vacancies at the relevant time and further to send a requisition in this regard to the Commission. It is stated that in compliance of the directions given as above, no requisition was sent to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, therefore, no occasion was their to recommend name of the petitioner for appointment as Teacher Grade-III. It is also stated that, as a matter of fact, as a consequence to the subsequent selections taken place no vacancy for the year 2004 and 2006 was available with the State Government against which the respondent-petitioner could have been appointed. 4. Issue notice as to why this petition for writ be not accepted, as prayed. It is also stated that, as a matter of fact, as a consequence to the subsequent selections taken place no vacancy for the year 2004 and 2006 was available with the State Government against which the respondent-petitioner could have been appointed. 4. Issue notice as to why this petition for writ be not accepted, as prayed. Shri D.K. Godara, accepts notice on behalf of contesting respondent Shri Kausal Kumar Gupta and under instructions of court Shri P.R. Singh, learned Additional Advocate General accepts notice on behalf of State of Rajasthan. 5. With the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and contesting respondent no.1, the appeal is heard finally at this stage. 6. As already stated, the case of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission is that no requisition was sent by the State Government to fill-up the vacancy if any existing pertaining to the process of selection initiated in the year 2004 and further that no vacancy was in existence within a year from the date of declaration of the merit (select list) in accordance with the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. 7. From perusal of the facts stated in the judgment impugned and also from perusal of the record, we do not find any merit with the argument advanced. Learned Single Bench on basis of the information supplied under Right to Information Act, 2005 and also on basis of a response given to a question before the floor of Rajasthan State Legislative Assembly arrived at the conclusion that during the period in-question a vacancy was in existence. The finding arrived by learned Single Bench is well reasoned and there is no material available on record to establish that the information given under Right to Information Act and also the answer given at the floor of Assembly were not correct. In view of it, we are in agreement with learned Single Bench that a vacancy was in existence within the period of one year from the date of declaration of merit list (select list) in accordance with the Rules of 1971. The respondent-petitioner, thus, is entitled for having appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III w.e.f. 29.07.2008, w.e.f. the date the other persons of the same selection were provided appointment. The respondent-petitioner, however, is not entitled for getting the monetary benefits in actual. 8. The respondent-petitioner, thus, is entitled for having appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III w.e.f. 29.07.2008, w.e.f. the date the other persons of the same selection were provided appointment. The respondent-petitioner, however, is not entitled for getting the monetary benefits in actual. 8. We are of considered opinion that no effort at all was made by the respondents to mislead the court or to cause any loss to the respondent-petitioner maliciously or with some ill-intention. Whatever happened that was due to some confusion at administrative level. In light of it, we deem it appropriate to set aside the cost imposed upon the appellant Rajasthan Public Service Commission as well as the State of Rajasthan and further the direction is given to make the payment of all monetary benefits in actual to the respondent-petitioner. It is also made clear that the directions given by learned Single Bench is not to be operated as a precedent and on basis of it no other person having 134 marks in the same process of selection shall become entitled to seek appointment as Teacher Grade III. 9. The respondent-petitioner, however, shall be entitled for all notional benefits including fixation of pay etc on grant of the appointment. 10. With the observations as above, the appeal stands disposed of.