JUDGMENT Inderjeet Singh, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer: "In the facts and circumstances aforesaid, the petitioners most respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased: 1. To allow the writ petition by quashing and setting aside the order dated 27.3.2018 issued by RPSC, whereby, the petitioners have been declared ineligible for the post of Junior Accountant under the Ministerial Employee Quota (Annexure No.P/1); 2. To declare the act of the RPSC of considering the last date of acquiring eligibility as that of 15.5.2015 is in contravention to the principle laid down by the Hon'ble division bench in the case of Jhabarmal Garhwal vs. RPSC, DB.SAW Writ No.1488/2016; 3. To declare the last date of acquiring the qualification of ministerial employee as 4.10.2016 for the post of junior accountant and accordingly, direct the respondents to issue the appointment orders to the petitioners; 4. To direct the respondents to place the petitioners over and above the less meritorious candidates and allot the place of posting as per their merit; 5. To grant any other order against the respondents that this Hon'ble Court deems just, reasonable and proper." 2. Brief facts of the case are that in pursuance of the advertisement dated 18.9.2013, the petitioners applied for the post of Junior Accountant under their respective categories i.e. SBC, General and OBC Categories. Subsequently, further, corrigendums were issued by the respondents on 31.10.2014 as well as 16.4.2015. Again a press note was issued by the respondents dated 10.8.2016, whereby, all the candidates were permitted to make necessary corrections by online from 11.8.2016 to 25.8.2016 and by offline till date of examination i.e. 1.10.2016. In pursuance to the said press note, all the petitioners who were subsequently appointed as Junior Judicial Assistant in Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur Bench, they applied for change of their category/correction in their application form from their respective categories SBC, General and OBC to ME Category. 3. Admittedly, the said corrections have been made by all the petitioners prior to last date as mentioned in the press note i.e. 1.10.2016. Result of the petitioners was also declared by the RPSC in the ME Category and all the petitioners were declared successful. 3. Admittedly, the said corrections have been made by all the petitioners prior to last date as mentioned in the press note i.e. 1.10.2016. Result of the petitioners was also declared by the RPSC in the ME Category and all the petitioners were declared successful. However, when the petitioners were not given appointment, all the petitioners jointly filed S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.5806/2018, Ravindra Kumar Poswal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., which was decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.3.2018, wherein, it has been held as under:- 4. Counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application stands resolved in view of the adjudication made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Lokendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 30th November, 2017, observing thus: "This Court finds that the Division Bench had considered the similar issue which is involved in the present batch of writ petitions. The petitioner in that case had also participated for the post of Accountant/Junior Accounts/Tehsil Revenue Accountants (TRA) against a direct recruitment quota by the recruitment process held by RPSC as per the Rajasthan Subordinate Accounts Service Rules, 1963, however, the parent department of the petitioner where he was working as LDC, did not grant him a certificate that he was substantively appointed. The plea raised by the petitioner was that his appointment was substantive and cancelling of appointment of petitioner was illegal. The Division Bench had held that an employee should be treated as holding a post in substantive capacity and if a person is appointed after due selection even on temporary post, it was to be taken that he is holding the post in substantive capacity. The Apex Court in the judgment cited by learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Rajendra Prasad, in AIR 1989 Supreme Court p. 38 (Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Gurnam Kaur), has dealt with the issue where casual expressions are made and how the judgments are treated as pronouncement of law and which are not part of ratio decidendi and are treated as obiter dicta and are not authoritative. Rajendra Prasad, in AIR 1989 Supreme Court p. 38 (Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Gurnam Kaur), has dealt with the issue where casual expressions are made and how the judgments are treated as pronouncement of law and which are not part of ratio decidendi and are treated as obiter dicta and are not authoritative. In the opinion of the Court, the case cited by the learned counsel for the respondents has no application and the Division Bench of this Court has dealt with the similar issue and it has recorded its finding after considering the entire submissions of both the parties. The Division Bench also relied upon a DB Judgment of this court in the case of Rajasthan High Court Private Secretaries and Stenographers' Association vs. The State of Rajasthan & ors. (D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2705/1988), decided on 12.12.1988. The counsel for the respondent-RPSC has relied upon the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Smt. Sunita Devi vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.9694/2009), decided on 05.02.2014. The Court in the said case was concerned with the date on which the eligibility of the candidate, who was applicant for a post, was to be considered. The said case cited by the learned counsel for the respondent does not cover the controversy which the present Court is required to decide about status of the petitioners whether they were holding the post substantively or not. In the opinion of the Court, the action of the respondents in treating the petitioners not holding a post on substantive basis is wrong and petitioners have illegally been deprived from consideration of their cases for appointment against 12.5% posts of Junior Accountant to be filled by direct recruitment from the Ministerial Staff of the Department of Government. The Condition of the respondents that since the petitioners were not confirmed and they were not holding lien on the post, on which they were appointed, is the wrong interpretation of the rules and as such, the petitioners have illegally been deprived from their fair right of consideration for appointment. The Condition of the respondents that since the petitioners were not confirmed and they were not holding lien on the post, on which they were appointed, is the wrong interpretation of the rules and as such, the petitioners have illegally been deprived from their fair right of consideration for appointment. The Court finds that the persons who have undergone the method of making direct recruitment by way of due selection by recruiting agency against substantive vacancies, cannot be treated as not substantively appointed and merely, if no confirmation order was issued, at the time of filing applications, such candidates cannot be rendered ineligible for participating against direct recruitment quota for the post of Junior Accountant to be filled by Ministerial Staff of the department of government. In the result, the writ petitions succeed and the respondents are directed to treat the petitioners eligible against 12.5% posts of Junior Accountant in direct recruitment quota as a Ministerial Staff of the department of government holding a post in the cadre substantively and if the petitioners are found in the merit and are otherwise suitable, their case may be considered for appointment. The said exercise shall be undertake by the State Government within a period of one month from the receipt of the copy of this order. The writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed." Counsel for the petitioner further urged that instant writ application be also disposed off in terms of the adjudication in the case of Lokendra Singh (supra), which has also been relied upon for the purpose of adjudication in the case of Balram vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 14132/2017, decided on 11th January, 2018, after affording opportunity of hearing to the State-respondents, who did not dispute the factual matrix aforesaid. In view of the above, instant writ application stands disposed off in terms of the order in the case of Lokendra Singh (supra)." 5. Even when appointment orders were not issued, the petitioners filed S. B. Contempt Petition Bearing No.600/2018, Ravindra Kumar Poswal vs. Shri D. B. Gupta & Ors., which was decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 2.4.2018 wherein it has been held as under:- "Heard Considered. In the context of submissions of Mr. Rajendra Prasad, AAG for the contemnors and Mr. In the context of submissions of Mr. Rajendra Prasad, AAG for the contemnors and Mr. Ajat Shatru Mina for the petitioners, this contempt petition qua petitioners No.1, 2 and 3 is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty, as prayed for. It goes without saying that the petitioners No.1, 2 and 3 shall also be free, as always they are, to lay a challenge to their aggrievement, in the instant case, to letter dated 27.3.2018 addressed by RPSC to the Director, Treasury & Accounts. The contempt petition to the extent of petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 is infructuous, they having been appointed as Junior Accountants." 6. Since the liberty was granted by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while deciding the contempt petition filed by the petitioner challenging the letter/order dated 27.3.2018, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents themselves vide press note dated 10.8.2016 permitted the petitioners to change their category, therefore, the respondents are estopped from denying appointment to the petitioners under the ME Category. 7. In support of their contentions, counsel relied upon the judgment passed by D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1488/2016, Jhabarmal Garhwal vs. RPSC, decided on 26.5.2017, wherein it has been held as under:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Though it is correct that where an advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates notifies the last date by which the qualification for eligibility has to be acquired, an applicant must acquire the qualification in question by the date notified. But in the peculiar facts which we would be noting, the said principle of law has to be applied keeping in view the peculiar facts which we would be noticing. 3. RPSC issued an advertisement on June 18, 2013 inviting applications from eligible candidates to be appointed to the various posts notified in the advertisement. 4. As per the advertisement the break-up of the posts was given. Needless to state reservation for members of Other Backward Castes, Backward Castes and Scheduled Tribe was prescribed. 5. A horizontal reservation for Ex-servicemen in the Unreserved, OBC, SC and ST had to be given effect to. 6. The appellants who were still serving in the Armed Forces but likely to superannuate in the near future submitted the necessary application forms indicating therein that Jhabarmal Garhwal was a member of an Other Backward Caste. 5. A horizontal reservation for Ex-servicemen in the Unreserved, OBC, SC and ST had to be given effect to. 6. The appellants who were still serving in the Armed Forces but likely to superannuate in the near future submitted the necessary application forms indicating therein that Jhabarmal Garhwal was a member of an Other Backward Caste. Laxman Singh applied in the unreserved category. 7. The examination was conducted on October 26, 2013 but was cancelled. Thereafter another public notice was issued in which the candidates who had already applied were permitted to rectify the mistakes; if any, in the application forms which they had submitted; and additionally were permitted to make an amendment in the category in which they were applying. The advertisement is in Hindi. We note the same. It reads as under:- tiwt trt iTcf srffcm ## yRifajfi ^rffar, 2013 fa a#far ^nfr arT#fa # anfaR ^ fa f#Rr m fat ajfam # hIWh ^ srt fafatER- arpr W 3RRTC falT fT H?T % I fafafl fa^ltER fa ffa^/faHdfad tfarr % ^TTW? fa ioo/--po fafR fam rt fi str fafatsR an#! fa fa*r fa#r t*: rpsconline.rajasthan,gov.in farfa 13.11.2014 fa 28.11.2014 Tlfa 1200 cRi fa^TT RT 11 faro % q^icr fa# fat wi fa fafatsR fafaci #tt ^ #faR fafa Rfafa I 8. The advertisement clearly indicates that 'jfa (mistake), # fa##! (change of category) could be effected by the candidates. The advertisement dated November 12, 2014 permitted these changes to be made latest by November 28, 2014. 9. Before the advertisement dated 12.11.2014 was issued, Jhabarmal Garhwal superannuated from the Navy on June 23, 2014. Laxman Singh superannuated from the Air Force on July 31, 2014. Thus, before November 12, 2014 both became Exservicemen. The result would be that whereas Laxman Singh would be entitled to be considered as a candidate in the unreserved category for the post for Exservicemen, Jhabarmal Garhwal would be entitled to be considered for the post which he had applied for as earmarked for an Ex-serviceman OBC candidate. He would be entitled to the benefit of the vertical as well as horizontal reservation. Both had acted pursuant to the notice noticed above and had submitted fresh applications. 10. He would be entitled to the benefit of the vertical as well as horizontal reservation. Both had acted pursuant to the notice noticed above and had submitted fresh applications. 10. The view taken by the learned Single Judge in the impugned decision that the two had yet to acquire the status of Ex-servicemen by the last date for filling the applications pursuant to the advertisement dated June 18, 2013, has overlooked the fact that on November 12, 2014 another advertisement was issued which would have the effect of shifting the date of eligibility norms acquiring to November 28, 2014. 11. We note that after November 28, 2014, the examination was conducted in the year 2015. 12. The appeals are allowed with a direction to RPSC to treat Jhabarmal Garhwal as an OBC Exserviceman and Laxman Singh as an Ex-serviceman for the posts they had applied for. 13. RPSC would now identify whether the two would find a merit position in the respective category warranting their names to be forwarded to the sponsoring authority. The exercise be carried out within four weeks from today. 14. No costs." 8. Counsel for the respondents is not in a position to dispute the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1488/2016, Jhabarmal Garhwal vs. RPSC, and further submits that the commission has taken a decision on 7.5.2015 wherein it has been held that eligibility of a candidate would be considered on the last date of submitting the application form. 9. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The writ petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be allowed for the reasons; firstly, once the respondents themselves have allowed the candidates to change their category vide press note dated 10.8.2016, therefore, the respondents are estopped from not considering the candidature of the petitioners in the ME Category; secondly, the petitioners have a right to participate in the selection process under the ME Category in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Jhabarmal Garhwal (supra). 11. In that view of the matter, the present writ petition stands allowed. The order passed by the respondents dated 27.3.2018 is quashed and set aside. 11. In that view of the matter, the present writ petition stands allowed. The order passed by the respondents dated 27.3.2018 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to issue order of appointment to the petitioners for the post of Junior Accountant, considering their case under the ME Category, within a period of one month.