ORDER : Rekha Borana, J. 1. The present petition has been filed against the non-consideration of the petitioners for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III (Level-I). The case of the petitioners in the present petition is that although they were having the qualifications of Senior Secondary and REET, as required in terms of the advertisement and although they had secured the marks higher than the cut off marks, they have not been considered for appointment. 2. At the time of filing of the writ petition, the prayer of the petitioners was for consideration of the qualification of BSTC acquired by them to be declared as a valid qualification and for their consideration for appointment on the basis of the said qualification. 3. The writ petition of the petitioners was filed in the year 2018. On 09.03.2021, an additional affidavit was filed and it was submitted that although the petitioners No. 2 and 3 were graduates, the degree/mark list of their graduation could not be submitted alongwith application forms inadvertently and therefore, the same may now be considered and they may be declared eligible and be afforded appointment. The said affidavit makes a mention of the judgments passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 10961/2018; Kripa Maida v. State of Rajasthan and Civil Writ Petition No. 10749/2018 Niraj Kumar Patidar v. State. It has been submitted in the additional affidavit that the case of the petitioners No. 2 and 3 be considered in light of the said judgments and they may also be afforded the appointment being graduates. 4. Per contra, counsel for the respondents submitted that the said ground as averred by the petitioners No. 2 and 3 in the additional affidavit was never raised by the petitioners in the writ petition and therefore, the same cannot be considered at this belated stage. Further, the counsel submitted that the vacancies which pertains to the year 2018 have been filled up and the last waiting list has been operated on 29.12.2021. Therefore, no vacancies in the category of ST (in which the petitioners applied) exist as of date and therefore, the petitioners cannot be granted the benefit. Further, the counsel submitted that the vacancies which pertains to the year 2018 have been filled up and the last waiting list has been operated on 29.12.2021. Therefore, no vacancies in the category of ST (in which the petitioners applied) exist as of date and therefore, the petitioners cannot be granted the benefit. Counsel argued that in the case of Naresh Chand Patel v. State of Rajasthan and others; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 279/2021, the Court interfered only because of the fact that the posts were lying vacant and the process of the recruitment was under way and therefore, the present petition cannot be held to be covered by the case of Naresh Chand Patel (supra). 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. A bare perusal of the pleadings as made in the petition makes it clear that the petitioners filed the petition only on the ground that their qualification of BSTC should be considered to be a valid qualification for the purpose of consideration of their appointment. It was nowhere the case of the petitioners in the writ petition that they are possessing the qualification of graduation and therefore the same be considered. It is only after passing of the judgment of Naresh Chand Patel (supra) on 23.02.2021 that an additional affidavit has been filed on 09.03.2021 with a prayer to consider the case of the petitioners No. 2 and 3 in view of the case of Naresh Chand Patel (supra). The said prayer of the petitioners cannot be considered for the following reasons: (i) In case of Naresh Chand Patel (supra), it was the specific ground of the petitioner therein that due to inadvertence he had not submitted the degree of graduation alongwith the application form and the same be considered. In the present matter no such pleadings was ever made by the petitioners and neither was the said case set up. (ii) There was a specific ground in the case of Naresh Chand Patel (supra) that on the date of the decision of the matter, the seats were vacant and the process of recruitment was under way. It was also the specific finding of the Court that the said order was passed only to balance the equity and having regard to the facts of that particular case. It was also the specific finding of the Court that the said order was passed only to balance the equity and having regard to the facts of that particular case. The judgment of Naresh Chand Patel (supra) cannot be termed to be judgment-in-rem and therefore cannot be applied in the present matter because of the facts of the present matter. (iii) It is the specific submission of the counsel for the respondents that no seat is vacant as on date and therefore too, the request of the petitioners to be considered cannot be entertained at this stage. 7. However, it is made clear that if any vacancy is existing till date or arise in future because of the non-joining of any candidate or any other circumstances, petitioners No. 2 and 3 would be considered for appointment if they file a representation for that purpose. So far as the petitioners No. 1 and 4 are concerned, it has been admitted by the counsel that no observations can be made in their favour as they did not possess the minimum qualifying marks in the Senior secondary and they were not graduate too. Therefore, the petitioners No. 1 and 4 would not be entitled to any relief. 8. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. 9. All pending applications also stand disposed of.