JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is filed by the State Government to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 01.11.2019 passed in S.B. Civil Review (Writ) Petition No. 68/2019. The litigation has a chequered history. As briefly as possible it can be recorded as under: The State Government desired to fill up 62 posts of Lecturer (Civil Engineering) in government colleges. The recruitment process was initiated by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for such purpose. Out of 62 vacancies 9 vacancies were reserved for women of which two would be for widow women. On 06.11.2013 the select list of 62 candidates was published. Six candidates were kept in waiting list. Upon issuing appointment orders it appears that one general category candidate and one SC category candidate did not accept appointment. Likewise two women candidates Anamika Purohit and Varsha Gidwani also did not accept the appointment. Writ petitions were filed by Ravindra Purohit and Hukmi Chand before the Rajasthan High Court seeking directions for operating the wait list for one general and one SC category candidate. The writ petitions were disposed of by a common judgment dated 04.08.2015 by the learned Single Judge in following terms: “Consequently, both the writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to send a requisition to the RPSC for appointment of the petitioners to the post of Lecturer Civil Engineer in general category and S.C. category respectively within a period of ten days from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. On receipt of the requisition, RPSC is directed to make recommendation in term of the merit position of the petitioners in the waiting list in their respective category within a period of ten days following. On receipt of recommendation and on verification necessary as per the practice of the State Government and on the petitioners then being found eligible, they be considered for appointment on the post of Lecturer Civil Engineer within fifteen days thereafter.” 2. Writ appeal and SLP filed against the said judgment failed. This judgment thus attained finality. 3. The second round of litigation started when two women candidates from wait list at S. Nos. 5 and 11, namely, Mitashree and Prashasti Maharshi filed writ petitions Nos. 14647/2016 and 14648/2016 respectively. Writ appeal and SLP filed against the said judgment failed. This judgment thus attained finality. 3. The second round of litigation started when two women candidates from wait list at S. Nos. 5 and 11, namely, Mitashree and Prashasti Maharshi filed writ petitions Nos. 14647/2016 and 14648/2016 respectively. Both these petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 01.05.2017 in following terms: “Counsel for the parties are in agreement that the controversy raised in the present writ petitions is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this court on 04.08.2015, in case of Ravindra Purohit vs. State (Technical Education) and Others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1781/2015. It is not denied that the appeal filed by the State Government against the order passed by co-ordinate Bench in case of Ravindra Purohit vs. State (Technical Education) and Others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1781/2015, has been dismissed by Division Bench of this court in bunch of D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writs) decided on 02.06.2016, lead case being State of Rajasthan and Another vs. Hukmi Chand and Another, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1141/2015. It is also not denied that the Special Leave Petition filed by the State has also been dismissed. As jointly prayed, present writ petitions are disposed of, in same terms as in case of Ravindra Purohit vs. State (Technical Education) and Others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1781/2015, decided on 04.08.2015.” 4. Pursuant to the said order of the learned Single Judge the administration issued appointment orders in favour of Mitashree and Prashasti Maharshi. Respondent No. 1 herein Prachi Saxena who was placed at S. No. 6 in the wait list i.e. below Mitashree and above Prashasti Maharshi objected to her exclusion from appointment. She first filed appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 01.05.2017. The appeal was disposed of by the Division Bench on 16.01.2019 allowing her to file an application before the learned Single Judge. She thereupon filed a S.B. Review Petition No. 68/2019. In the meantime she had also filed an independent writ petition bearing No. 14625/2018 raising the same issues. The review petition came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 01.11.2019. In view of the review order the writ petition filed by Prachi Saxena was disposed of as withdrawn on 01.11.2019. In the meantime she had also filed an independent writ petition bearing No. 14625/2018 raising the same issues. The review petition came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 01.11.2019. In view of the review order the writ petition filed by Prachi Saxena was disposed of as withdrawn on 01.11.2019. Taking note of these developments the learned Single Judge has issued following directions in review petition: “Taking into consideration the situation, which has arisen where the original writ petitioner has already been given appointment, this Court directs the State Government to consider the case of the review petitioner as against any other vacant post, which may be available with the department without disturbing the appointment of the original writ petitioner. However, inter-se seniority of the review petitioner shall be maintained in accordance with the reserve list. With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the review petition is disposed of.” 5. This judgment the State Government has challenged in the present appeal. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the document on record we find that in the first round of litigation in case of Ravindra Purohit (supra), the learned Single Judge had required the authorities to send a requisition to the RPSC for appointment of the petitioners to the post of Lecturer (Civil Engineering) in general category and SC category respectively and upon receipt of the requisition the RPSC would make recommendations in terms of the merit position of the petitioners in the waiting list of their respective categories. Thus the appointment to be offered to those petitioners was only to be in terms of their position in the waiting list. This is crucial because in our opinion the learned Single Judge did not ask the State Government to appoint those petitioners irrespective of consideration whether any other person in the waiting list is placed higher than those petitioners. This is further important since the learned Judge in the order dated 01.05.2017 in case of Prashasti Maharshi had merely adopted by incorporation the directions issued in case of Ravindra Purohit (supra). Consequently what the State and RPSC had to do was to operate the wait list of women candidates for two vacancies in the said category which remained unfilled on account of the selected candidates not joining duties. Consequently what the State and RPSC had to do was to operate the wait list of women candidates for two vacancies in the said category which remained unfilled on account of the selected candidates not joining duties. It appears that after offering appointment to Mitashree the RPSC also recommended Prachi and acting on such recommendation the State Government also issued an offer of appointment to Prachi since Prachi was placed at a serial number higher than Prashasti in the waiting list. However it further appears that thereafter an offer of appointment was made to Prashasti who accepted it and Prachi was not appointed. On a query raised by us the learned Additional Advocate General pointed out that this was so because Prashasti had filed a contempt petition and the State Government was required to implement the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 7. In our opinion the correct position would have been that implementing the order of the learned Single Judge in case of Prashasti Maharshi and properly understanding the directions issued in case of Ravindra Purohit (supra) the present respondent No. 1 Prachi Saxena had to have been offered appointment ahead of Prashasti. The learned Single Judge thus correctly assessed this position. We find via media that learned Single Judge has therefore directed that Prachi would be appointed against existing or future vacancy but her inter se seniority position would be maintained. 8. In the peculiar facts of the case we find that learned Single Judge has found the correct solution. It is clarified that Prachi Saxena will not claim any wages for the past period till her appointment. However remaining observations and directions of the learned Single Judge are left untouched. 9. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.