ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The case is listed on the second stay application, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 3. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 14.11.2007, whereby, the respondent authorities had denied the benefits of seniority, pension, etc. to the petitioner. 4. Briefly noted the facts in the present writ petition are that the respondents vide advertisement dated 23.01.1996 published vacancies of Sub Inspector of Police (A.P.) and Platoon Commander (Sub Inspector RAC) under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Rules, 1989. The petitioner applied for the same and appeared in the examination conducted for the purpose in the selection process. He secured 397th position in ‘General’ category and 67th position in ‘OBC’ category. Since the petitioner was not given appointment as per his merit position in OBC category, he preferred a writ petition before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3170/1998. The writ petition was decided by this Court vide order dated 01.06.2005 with a direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of the persons, including the petitioner, belonging to OBC category, who stood in waiting list for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector under the advertisement dated 23.01.1996 and to give appointment to the selected candidates in accordance with law. 5. In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, the petitioner was given appointment in the respondents department vide order dated 17.03.2007 passed by Inspector General of Police (Headquarter) Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. The petitioner joined the services in the respondents department in pursuance of the appointment order issued, however, he was not assigned seniority as per his merit position in the seniority list for the selections conducted in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the respondents department. He, therefore, preferred a representation for grant of notional seniority and other benefits, but the same were denied. Hence, the present writ petition was filed. 6. He, therefore, preferred a representation for grant of notional seniority and other benefits, but the same were denied. Hence, the present writ petition was filed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for no fault of the petitioner, he was deprived of the appointment on the post of Platoon Commander as per his merit list and therefore, after the judgment of this Court, the respondents though had given the appointment to the petitioner on the post of Platoon Commander in the year 2007, but the notional benefits including seniority from the date on which his junior was appointed have not been granted to him. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even the matter was referred to the Department of Personnel and the Department of Personnel vide their letter dated 28.12.2021 has given concurrence for considering the services of the petitioner notionally w.e.f. the date on which his junior was appointed. He also submits that further, vide order communication dated 14.05.2021, the Joint Secretary, Home has also expressed the same view. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the benefit of notional seniority may be granted to the petitioner from the date on which his junior was appointed, in the selection process undertaken vide advertisement dated 23.01.1996. He further submits that the benefits which are permissible under the law should also be extended to the petitioner. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has been granted all the benefits for which he was entitled as per Rules. He further submits that since the petitioner has actually joined the duties in the year 2007, therefore, appropriate seniority after his joining has been granted to him. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that there was no direction of this Court in its judgment dated 01.06.2005 to grant notional seniority w.e.f. the date his junior was appointed by the respondents. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be dismissed. 10. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and gone through the relevant record of the case. 11. The undisputed facts in the present writ petition are that the petitioner appeared in the selection process undertaken by the respondents in pursuance of the advertisement dated 23.01.1996 and was placed at 397th position in ‘General’ category and 67th position in ‘OBC’ category. 11. The undisputed facts in the present writ petition are that the petitioner appeared in the selection process undertaken by the respondents in pursuance of the advertisement dated 23.01.1996 and was placed at 397th position in ‘General’ category and 67th position in ‘OBC’ category. Since the petitioner was not granted the appointment, therefore, he preferred a writ petition before this Court and this Court vide order dated 01.06.2005 disposed of the writ petition of the petitioner. 12. In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Platoon Commander in the respondents department. Since the petitioner was not extended the benefits of seniority on notional basis w.e.f. the date his junior was appointed in the respondents department, therefore, the present writ petition was filed. 13. On the representation preferred by the petitioner, the matter was examined by the Department and guidelines were sought from the Department of Personnel and Training. The Department of Personnel and Training vide its communication dated 28.12.2021 has given the concurrence to the respondent department for grant of seniority to the petitioner on notional basis from the date on which his junior was appointed and considering the same, the Joint Secretary of the respondent department made a recommendation to the Director General of Police to grant the benefits of notional seniority to the petitioner. On the similar lines, vide letter dated 14.05.2021, the Joint Secretary, Home wrote to the Director General of Police, Rajasthan to grant notional seniority to the petitioner. 14. For brevity, the texts of the letters dated 14.05.2021 and 28.12.2021 are reproduced hereunder:- 15. A bare perusal of these two letters very clearly shows that the respondents department are of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of notional seniority from the date on which his junior was appointed. 16. It is the settled proposition of law that if for no mistake on the part of a candidate, he has been wrongly denied the benefit of appointment and thereafter, in view of the orders passed by the Courts or Tribunals, if a person is granted appointment from a later date, then that person cannot be allowed to suffer for no fault on his part. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.2883-2885/2023 (SLP © Nos.6668-6670/2023) (Sunil & Ors. Vs. High Court of Delhi & Ors.) has held as under:- “7. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.2883-2885/2023 (SLP © Nos.6668-6670/2023) (Sunil & Ors. Vs. High Court of Delhi & Ors.) has held as under:- “7. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the fact that the earlier decision of re-evaluation of 13 candidates attained the finality and thereafter, the marks of 13 candidates came to be increased, the Special Committee was absolutely justified in its decision dated 01.10.2018 to accord notional seniority as per the revised marks/merit list. At the relevant time, none of the selected candidates (22 candidates – respondents herein) applied for re-evaluation and even challenged the decision of the Special Committee to re-evaluate the marks of only 13 candidates. Having failed to challenge the earlier decision to have the re-evaluation of 13 candidates only and even having not applied for the re-evaluation at the relevant time though the exercise of re-evaluation was going on thereafter, it was not open for the respondents to make a grievance subsequently that the re-evaluation of the marks of 13 candidates cannot be at their disadvantage. Once on re-evaluation, the marks are increased the respective candidates whose marks are increased will have to be placed at appropriate place in the merit list. Non-grant of seniority based on revised marks, thus, would render the process of re-evaluation redundant. The candidates whose marks have been increased cannot be deprived of their position in the select list dated 30.01.2017 and on the correction of error, they were required to be given the benefit of notional seniority i.e., inter se seniority on the basis of merit. There was no fault on the part of the appellants. It was because of the wrong marking at the relevant time they were deprived of the appointments and they were not placed in the merit list and as such was required to be corrected on the revision of the marks on re-evaluation. Therefore, the Special Committee was absolutely justified in taking the decision dated 01.10.2018 to accord the notional seniority in accordance with the revised marks to candidates. The Division Bench of the High Court has materially erred insetting aside the conscious decision taken by the Special Committee to accord the notional seniority in accordance with the revised marks to candidates.” 18. Therefore, the Special Committee was absolutely justified in taking the decision dated 01.10.2018 to accord the notional seniority in accordance with the revised marks to candidates. The Division Bench of the High Court has materially erred insetting aside the conscious decision taken by the Special Committee to accord the notional seniority in accordance with the revised marks to candidates.” 18. In the considered opinion of this Court, if there is no fault on the part of the petitioner for granting appointment from the date on which he was and otherwise due to be appointed and later on, after intervention of this Court, if the appointment has been granted to the petitioner, then he is entitled to get the benefits of seniority, etc. on notional basis. 19. In view of the discussion made above, the writ petition merits acceptance and the same is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant seniority to the petitioner on notional basis w.e.f. the date on which his junior was appointed in pursuance of the selection process undertaken in furtherance of the advertisement dated 23.01.1996. 19. Needless to say that promotion, pension, etc. shall also be taken into consideration while granting seniority to the petitioner. 20. It is made clear that all promotions and other service benefits shall be admissible to the petitioner in accordance with rules.