ORDER : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs: "I. The respondents may kindly be directed to re-determine/re-compute the backlog vacancies of reserved category as mentioned in the advertisement dated 02.05.2013 after taking into consideration the judicial verdicts passed by this Court in orders dated 09.02.2015 in SBCW No.8934/2014 (Dr. Arun Kumar & Ors. v. State & Ors.) and 18.01.2012 in SBCW No.9015/2009 at Jaipur Bench and accordingly backlog vacancy may be reduced from 150 to 101. II. The respondents be directed to fill up 48 vacancies from the meritorious candidates in accordance with law after operating reserve list and amended merit list issued by the Commission on 14.02.2017 and further respondents be directed to grant appointment to the petitioners on the post of Veterinary Officer in pursuance of advertisement dated 02.05.2013 with all consequential benefits. III. Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners. IV. Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioners." 2. The petitioners have challenged the determination of posts particularly, the backlog Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe posts which were shown to be 150 in number. As per the earlier judgment of this Court passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7694/2016 (Dr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 19.01.2017, the relevant portion of which reads as under: In view of the admitted facts and undisputed legal position, the present petitions are disposed of with the following directions:- (1) The remaining 150 posts of Veterinary Officer shall be filled from the remaining candidates of the said select/waiting list in accordance with merit. The needful shall be done within one month from receipt of the copy of this order, in case, no stay is operating in any other writ petitions with respect to the said selection list. (2) All other persons like the petitioners, who were working on contract basis and are still working on the said post shall be allowed to continue on the remaining posts beyond 525, if the posts are still lying vacant. They shall be allowed to continue till regularly selected candidates are made available. (2) All other persons like the petitioners, who were working on contract basis and are still working on the said post shall be allowed to continue on the remaining posts beyond 525, if the posts are still lying vacant. They shall be allowed to continue till regularly selected candidates are made available. (3) The petitioners shall be paid the salary for the period for which it has been withheld. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners working on contractual basis should be given the same pay-scale as is being given to other similarly situated candidates working on the said post since 1998. However, no such prayer has been made in the present writ petitions. Accordingly, the petitioners are at liberty to seek the relief vide separate proceedings, if so advised, in accordance with law. Disposed of in the above terms." 3. Thus, the basic adjudication regarding 150 vacancies has already been made by this Court and the controversy is no more res-integra as this Court has already directed that the backlog to be reduced and a proportionate distribution of those seats may be made and the remaining seats in the select list/waiting list shall be filled in accordance with the merit. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents to this extent stated that the compliance has already been made as 34 seats of backlog which were found in excess have been withdrawn from the backlog and redistributed amongst all the categories in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage carries forward the backlog dispute to another judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out the judgment passed by this Court at Jaipur Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9015/2009 (Dr. Abhishek Goyal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 18.01.2012. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: "In view of the discussion made above, these writ petitions are disposed of with direction to the respondents that by treating 14 posts to be for general category pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.05.2008, it should be filled up from and amongst meritorious candidates by normal procedure. This is more so when as per the reply given by the respondents themselves, 141 posts remained unfilled out of 450 posts so advertised. This is more so when as per the reply given by the respondents themselves, 141 posts remained unfilled out of 450 posts so advertised. Thus, there remains no justification not to fill up 14 posts from and amongst the meritorious candidates. The direction aforesaid may be carried out within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Before parting with the judgment, it would be necessary to observe that the State Government should have followed the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court given in the case of M. Nagraj & Ors. (supra), portion of which has been quoted in the preceding para. They are accordingly directed to suitably amend the Rules so notified on 10.10.2002 so as to make it in conformity with the direction given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case. The respondents are expected to take up the issue with the Department of Personnel for carrying out direction given aforesaid within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. To find out the compliance of the direction aforesaid, the registry is directed to list this case after six months before this Court." 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in respect of previous advertisement dated 26.05.2008, it was determined by the Court that there were 14 seats which were to be filled by the meritorious candidates of the general category in normal procedure. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents are not in a position to dispute the precedent law so cited. 8. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondent-State to take into account the directions given by this Court at Jaipur Bench passed in the aforementioned S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9015/2009. On such consideration by the respondent-State, a reasoned speaking order shall be passed strictly in accordance with law within a period of 30 days from today. It is further made clear that meanwhile any operation of the select list shall be subject to the decision finally taken by the respondent-State in accordance with the aforesaid directions.