ORDER : 1. Learned counsel for the parties are not in dispute on the proposition that somewhat identical controversy has already been raised, considered and adjudicated upon by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in a batch of writ applications at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, lead case being Jagdish Chandra Sen Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.: SBCWP No. 8224/2017, vide order dated 15th January, 2018, observing thus: “In view of the above discussion, the additional challenge laid by the petitioners, beyond what has already been adjudicated by prior judgments of this Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Bhatt (supra) & Bhagwana Ram (supra), has no substance and the same is, therefore, rejected. Coming to the various individual grievances raised by the petitioners in the writ petitions, which have been noticed hereinbefore i.e. the Teachers have been posted at Level-I and/or at Level-II despite their eligibility/ineligibility for holding the said post, not reflecting the actual number of vacant posts available as on date of counseling, allotting the place of posting in the School, which were not included in the counseling list, ignoring the seniority; despite available of the vacant post at a given School, posting is given to another School while accommodating others at the vacant position; despite availability of posts in the same village/Panchayat/Panchayat Samiti, petitioners have been posted out of the said place; those who have been appointed under the Rules of 1971, for them also, orders have been passed under Rule 6D of the Rules of 1971 and that provisions of T.A. Rules have been violated. From the perusal of the facts in several cases and the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, the grievances raised by the petitioners, appear to have some substance. Admittedly, the respondent department has issued various guidelines including dated 08.05.2016 dealing with the said aspect regarding posting and once guidelines are issued, the respondent-department is bound to follow the said guidelines. As also noticed hereinbefore, the respondents have by order dated 17.08.2017 formed Grievance Redressal Committees (‘the Committees’) for redressing grievances, pertaining to the charge of setup for the year 2017-18 and the respondents are bound to dealt with the grievances raised by the petitioners appropriately. As also noticed hereinbefore, the respondents have by order dated 17.08.2017 formed Grievance Redressal Committees (‘the Committees’) for redressing grievances, pertaining to the charge of setup for the year 2017-18 and the respondents are bound to dealt with the grievances raised by the petitioners appropriately. Looking to the overall circumstances of the case, it is directed as under:- (a) The challenge laid by the petitioners to the change of setup/transfer from the Panchayati Raj Department to the Education Department, has no substance and the same is, therefore, rejected. (b) The petitioners would be free to raise their individual grievances before the Committees setup by the respondent Department by its order dated 17.08.2017. The petitioners would raise their grievances, if any, before the respective Committees in writing by (20 of 28) 29.01.2018. (c) The Committees shall decide the grievances, if raised, based on requirements of provisions of Rule 6D of the Rules of 1971 and the guidelines dated 08.05.2016, 09.05.2016, 31.05.2016 & 01.06.2016, as indicated in the order dated 17.08.2017, within a period of 15 days thereafter i.e. by 15.02.2018. The Committees shall ensure that while passing the orders the grievances raised by the petitioners are appropriately dealt with. (d) In cases, where interim orders have been passed, they shall remain in force till the representation, if made by the petitioner/grievance raised by the petitioner, is decided by the Committee. (e) The petitioners would follow the directions passed by the Committees. (f) Those petitioners, who choose not to raise any grievance by 29.01.2018 before the Committee, in their cases, the interim orders, if any, would come to an end on 29.01.2018. (g) It is made clear that the directions issued would apply only to the petitioners before this Court and those who have already accepted the postings, pursuant to the orders passed under Rule 6D of the Rules of 1971, would not be entitled to approach the Committees in terms of the directions issued by this Court. With the above directions, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are disposed of.” 2. In view of the above, the instant writ application stands disposed off in terms of the order dated 15th January, 2018, as extracted hereinabove, but for date to raise individual grievances before the Committee set up by the respondent-Department, which may be done by the petitioner in the instant writ application on or before 26th February, 2018. 3. In view of the above, the instant writ application stands disposed off in terms of the order dated 15th January, 2018, as extracted hereinabove, but for date to raise individual grievances before the Committee set up by the respondent-Department, which may be done by the petitioner in the instant writ application on or before 26th February, 2018. 3. In case, the petitioner did not raise any grievance by 26th February, 2018, in the matter, interim order, if any, would come to an end on 26th February, 2018. 4. The Committee shall decide the representation, if instituted, in the backdrop of the guidelines as taken note of by the Coordinate Bench and directions issued vide order dated 15th January, 2018. The representation be decided on or before 16th March, 2018. 5. It is further made clear that the factum of joining of the petitioner at the transferred station would not be a ground to deprive the petitioner of representation and its consideration on merits by the Committee. 6. With the observations and directions as indicated above, the instant writ as well as stay application stand disposed off.