JUDGMENT : ARUN BHANSALI, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against inaction of the respondents pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in S.B.C.W.P. No. 11729/2018, decided on 09.08.2018 filed by the petitioner. 2. This Court relying on the judgments in the case of Pinal Singh Ranawat vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2781/2014, decided on 01.08.2016, Shivom Gupta vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1177/2016, decided on 03.05.2017 and Sandeep Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, S.B.C.W.P. No. 8031/2014, decided on 23.02.2016, issued the following directions:- "2. In view of aforequoted judgment, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of LDC in pursuance of advertisement dated 14.2.2013 while treating him to be having a valid qualification of Computer Application obtained in Graduation/B.Ed. and on positive consideration if the petitioner is found eligible and meritorious, then he shall be given appointment on the post of LDC within a period of 60 days from today. Such consideration shall be subject to availability of vacancies for the post in-question." 3. It is submitted that pursuant to the directions, the petitioner approached the respondents by way of representation. Whereafter the respondents kept on seeking opinion/raise issues pertaining to petitioners eligibility, as petitioner had done her Senior Secondary (Vocational). 4. The State Government vide Annexure-11 specifically indicated that as the issue raised was squarely covered by judgment in the case of Rupa Ram Meghwal, the same did not require any challenge and that judgment be implemented. However, despite specific direction and circular dated 14.06.2013 (Annexure-12) issued by the Principal Secretary and Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, pertaining to the equivalence of the Senior Secondary (Vocational) with Senior Secondary (Academic), the respondents did not pass any order in compliance of the directions issued by this Court despite petitioner standing in merit. 5. On notices being issued, the respondents have filed reply relying on a Circular dated 04.06.2013 indicating that as the petitioner has not passed the Bridge course, the qualification of the petitioner was not equivalent to the eligibility qualification required for appointment as LDC and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 6. 5. On notices being issued, the respondents have filed reply relying on a Circular dated 04.06.2013 indicating that as the petitioner has not passed the Bridge course, the qualification of the petitioner was not equivalent to the eligibility qualification required for appointment as LDC and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 7. A perusal of the Circular (Annexure-R/1), relied on by the respondents, indicates that the same was issued on 04.06.2013 by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, which reads as under:- ^^fo"k; %& dŒfyŒ lh/kh HkRrhZ 2013 esa lhfu;j lSd.Mjh ijh{kk dh mPp ek/;fed O;kolkf;d ls led{krk ckcrA mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr ys[k gS fd dbZ ftyk ifj"knksa }kjk dŒfyŒ lh/kh HkRrhZ 2013 esa ;g ekxZn'kZu pkgk x;k gS fd mPp ek/;fed O;kolkf;d mRrh.kZ vH;FkhZ lhfu;j lSd.Mjh ijh{kk vdknfed ds led{k gS vFkok ughaA bl ckcr lfpo] ek/;fed f'k{kk cksMZ vtesj ls tkudkjh pkgs tkus ij muds }kjk i= fnukad 03-06-2013 ls voxr djk;k gS fd O;kolkf;d f'k{kk mRrh.kZ vH;FkhZ }kjk ;fn fczt dkslZ mRrh.kZ dk Áek.k i= ÁkIr dj fy;k x;k gS] rks og lhfu;j lSd.Mjh vdknfed ds led{k gSA fczt dkslZ mRrh.kZrk ds vHkko esa mPp ek/;fed ijh{kk O;kolkf;d mRrh.kZ vH;FkhZ lhfu;j lSd.Mjh vdknfed ds led{k ugha gSA bl gsrq lfpo] ek/;fed f'k{kk cksMZ vtesj ls ÁkIr i= dh Nk;k Áfr vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq Ásf"kr gSA dŒfyŒ HkRrhZ esa blds vuqlkj dk;Zokgh fd;k tkuk lqfuf'pr djsaA** 8. Whereas the Circular dated 14.06.2013 (Annexure-12) issued by the Principal Secretary and Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, on the same issue, indicated as under:- ^^fo"k; %& lhfu;j lSd.Mjh ijh{kk dh mPp ek/;fed O;kolkf;d ls led{krk ckcrA mijksDr fo"k;kUrZxr ys[k gS fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj }kjk ,lŒchŒ flfoy ;kfpdk la[;k 6989@2013 muokuh eksgj flag cuke jktLFkku jkT; oxSjgk esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 13 twu 2013 ds vuqlkj dfuB fyfid HkRrhZ ds nkSjku mPp ek/;fed O;kolkf;d ijh{kk dh mPp ek/;fed vdknfed ijh{kk ds led{k Lohdkj djrs gq, ojh;rk lwph cukbZ tkus ds funsZ'k fn;s gSA rn~uqlkj iwoZ foHkkxh; funsZ'kksa dks vfrlhfer djrs gq, mPp ek/;fed O;kolkf;d ijh{kk dks mPp ek/;fed vdknfed ijh{kk ds led{k Lohdkj djrs gq, dfuB fyfid in dh HkRrhZ gsrq ojh;rk lwph rS;kj dh tkosA** 9. Once after the Circular dated 04.06.2013 (Annexure-R/1) another Circular dated 14.06.2013 (Annexure-12) was issued by a higher authority indicating that all other departmental circulars issued earlier were superseded and it was directed that vocational course shall be treated as equivalent to academic course and the merit for LDC be prepared accordingly, there is no reason whatsoever for the respondents to thereafter continue to stick to the requirements of Circular dated 04.06.2013, which already stands superseded by Circular dated 14.06.2013. 10. In view thereof, the action of the respondents in not complying with the directions issued by this Court on account of purported ineligibility of the petitioner/lack of requisite qualification in absence of doing the requisite bridge course cannot be sustained. 11. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The respondents are directed to follow the Circular dated 14.06.2013 (Annexure-12) qua the qualification of the petitioner and comply with the directions issued by this Court on 09.08.2018 in S.B.C.W.P. No. 11729/2018. Requisite steps be take and compliance be made by the respondents within a period of four weeks from today.