ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the information dated 12.10.2019 (Annex.5) and provisional select list for engagement of Nurse Grade-II (GNM) issued pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.01.2016. Further direction has been sought that the respondents may be directed to prepare a fresh merit list at district level as per the directions issued by the Full Bench of this Court in Rajkumar & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: AIR 2016 Raj. 176 . 2. An advertisement dated 28.01.2016 (Annex.1) was issued by the respondents for contractual engagement for National Health Mission. The advertisement pertains to 3167 posts for GNM and 1789 posts for ANM and several other posts. 3. The advertisement as such did not indicate as to whether selections would be made at the district level or at the State level. The petitioners participated in the said selection process and indicated their home district in the application form. 4. On 18.02.2019 a notice was issued inter alia requiring the candidates to fill online preference for 34 districts by 21.02.2019 and it was indicated that the result would be declared by 21.02.2019 and the document verification would take place between 25.02.2019 to 02.03.2019. 5. On 25.02.2019, the candidates were called for document verification. Subsequent thereto, on 12.10.2019 (Annex.5), the provisional select list was issued by the respondents. As apparently, the said list was issued at State level, the petitioners feeling aggrieved by the same, have filed the present writ petition. 6. It is inter alia claimed that on 20.01.2017 (Annex.6), the respondents in view of the Full Bench judgment in the case of Rajkumar (supra) had taken decision to prepare a district wise merit list, which decision has not been followed by the respondents and that the action of the respondents in providing for the selection based on State wise list is contrary to the Full Bench judgment and, therefore, the action of the respondents in this regard deserves to be set aside. 7. 7. Further submissions have been made that qua the same advertisement for the post of ANM, the respondents have followed the district wise merit list and have accorded appointments and, therefore, on that count also as the posts of GNM have been advertised by the same advertisement, the respondents are not justified in following a State wise merit list pattern and, therefore, the action of the respondents deserves to be set aside. 8. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents inter alia submitting that the decision in the case of Rajkumar (supra) has not been contravened by the respondents and the respondents have followed the dictum in the case of Priyanka Saini & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1766/2017 decided on 01.05.2017 at Jaipur Bench. 9. Further submissions have been made by filing additional affidavit that the respondents being aware of the Full Bench judgment and judgment in the case of Priyanka Saini (supra) have acted based on the legal advice as tendered so as to ensure that the direction issued by this Court are complied with. 10. During course of submissions reliance has also been placed on order passed by this Court in Mohammed Farukh Mehar & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ No.3940/2019, decided on 14.03.2019 in relation to the same GNM recruitment, wherein, decision of the respondents regarding following State wise merit list has been upheld. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that the dictum in the case of Rajkumar (supra) has been very clear in relation to the NRHM project and, therefore, the action of the respondents in providing for a State wise merit list for contractual engagement for the post of GNM cannot be sustained. 12. Submissions were made that once the respondents in relation to the post of ANM have followed the district wise merit list pattern now it is not open for the respondents to fall back on the State wise merit list pattern. 13. 12. Submissions were made that once the respondents in relation to the post of ANM have followed the district wise merit list pattern now it is not open for the respondents to fall back on the State wise merit list pattern. 13. However, when a specific query was put to the counsel in relation to the fact as to whether in case the district wise merit list is followed, whether a person in another district having higher marks would be deprived of the selection even if he is prepared to go and work in another district, which is not his home district, it is fairly submitted that status of successful candidates in district wise merit list and State wise merit list cannot be compared and the candidates having higher marks in other than home district would lose out in relation to other district. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the action and submitted that the directions in the case of Priyanka Saini (supra) have been very clear and the same have been followed and that judgment in the case of Rajkumar (supra) does not lay down that the selections have to take place at district level only. 15. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 16. The controversy pertaining to the validity of district wise merit list and State wise merit list was resolved by the Full Bench in Rajkumar (supra) case, wherein, the Full Bench inter alia came to the following conclusion:- “Accordingly, the first question referred to us is answered by holding that engagement of paramedical staff with preparation of merit at District level does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. ……. ……. ……. We are of the view that in light of the complete scheme of NRHM as discussed, the assistance and support of the locals in its implementation is essential and, therefore, for the purpose of engagement of staff, if preference is given on basis of the place of residence and/or local criteria among the equals, then that is not irrational or in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The engagement of staff under National Rural Health Mission at district level and by providing preference to the locals, equals have not been treated differently without any justifiable reasons. The engagement of staff under National Rural Health Mission at district level and by providing preference to the locals, equals have not been treated differently without any justifiable reasons. As such, there is no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The second question referred is also answered accordingly.” (emphasis supplied) 17. This Court in the case of Mohammed Farukh Mehar (supra), wherein also, the plea raised was violation of judgment in the case of Rajkumar (supra) was raised, came to the following conclusion:- “So far as the judgment in the case of Rajkumar (supra) is concerned, the Full Bench while dealing with the issue, laid down that engagement of paramedical staff with preparation of merit at district level does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution and if preference is given on the basis of place of residence and/or local criteria among the equals, then that is not irrational or in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The judgment essentially laid down that if such a preference is given, the same would not be irrational or in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The judgment did not mandate that on each occasion, the advertisement has to be issued district-wise and/or that under NRHM Scheme preparation of merit list has to be at district level only.” 18. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the action of the respondents in providing for a State wise merit list is in any manner in violation of judgment in the case of Rajkumar (supra). 19. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Priyanka Saini (supra), wherein, the issue in relation to the outcome based on the district level selections was raised, after referring to the judgment in the case of Rajkumar (supra) came to the following conclusion and directed as under:- “Following the view formulated by the coordinate Bench in the case of Rajkumar & Ors. (supra), the present writ petitions are disposed of by issuing following directions:- (i). That the respondents shall issue a public notice in ‘Rajasthan Patrika’ and ‘Dainik Bhaskar’ having largest circulation in the State of Rajasthan, within ten days from the receipt of certified copy of the order. (ii). That the respondents in the public notice shall also disclose number of vacancies available in each District. (iii). That the respondents shall issue a public notice in ‘Rajasthan Patrika’ and ‘Dainik Bhaskar’ having largest circulation in the State of Rajasthan, within ten days from the receipt of certified copy of the order. (ii). That the respondents in the public notice shall also disclose number of vacancies available in each District. (iii). That the respondents in the public notice to be issued in pursuance of directions issued above, shall seek option of candidates district-wise. Needless to say, a meritorious candidate shall first give option for his/her home district and then shall give his/her preference for remaining districts serial-wise. (iv). That the respondents, after meritorious candidates are allowed to exercise option for his/her home district and posts are filled on that basis, shall allocate remaining posts in other districts to successful candidates on the basis of merit. (v). It is clarified that no candidate lower in merit will be allowed to jump a candidate who is meritorious. So far employment is concerned, all candidates in merit list shall be allocated a district. (vi). That respondents shall device a formula to act in consonance with the directions issued by this court above so that no meritorious person is left out of the employment.” (emphasis supplied) 20. The above directions clearly envisage that meritorious candidates are allowed to exercise option for their home district and posts are filled on that basis, shall allocate remaining posts in other districts to successful candidates on the basis of merit and further direction has been given that no candidate lower in merit will be allowed to jump a candidate who is meritorious for the purpose of implementing the above dictate. 21. The respondents, based on the opinion, have formulated procedure, wherein, all the candidates have been given opportunity to give preference for the 34 districts, wherein, vacant posts are available and based on the exercise of option, they would be accorded appointment based on their merit and category. The said action of the respondents is perfectly in sync with the general principles as well as directions given in the case of Priyanka Saini (supra), wherein, a person higher in merit cannot be made to suffer only on account of his place of residence / home district. 22. The said action of the respondents is perfectly in sync with the general principles as well as directions given in the case of Priyanka Saini (supra), wherein, a person higher in merit cannot be made to suffer only on account of his place of residence / home district. 22. However, the said aspect could have given way, in case, the respondents had decided to follow district wise merit list as laid down in the case of Rajkumar (supra), which the respondents, based on the opinion, have decided to abandon. 23. Insofar as, the submission in relation to the exercise undertaken by the respondents for the post of ANM is concerned, the respondents have clearly indicated that the exercise, which has been now undertaken in the case of GNM is independent of ANM exercise and in any case the respondents are not bound to follow the same procedure, if the same as per the opinion was found to be contrary to the directions issued in the case of Priyanka Saini (supra), wherein, it was emphasized that a lower meritorious person cannot march over a higher meritorious person. 24. In the overall circumstances of the case, in case, a district wise merit list pattern was to be followed, the said direction would be violated, which aspect has been conceded by learned counsel for the petitioners as well. 25. In view of the above discussion, the action of the respondents in issuing the State wise merit list following the dictum in the case of Priyanka Saini (supra) cannot be faulted so as to require interference in the present writ petition. 26. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed leaving it open for the respondents to proceed strictly in accordance with law.