JUDGMENT : 1. Since both the instant petitions involve a common controversy, though with marginal variation in the contextual facts, therefore, for the purposes of the present analogous adjudication, the facts and the prayer clauses are being taken from the above-numbered S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12591/2020, while treating the same as a lead case. 2. The prayer clauses read as under: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that your Lordship may kindly be pleased to allow this writ petition and by an appropriate writ, order or directions, the respondents may kindly be directed:- (i) to place petitioners equivalent to the candidate appointed prior to them and to grant all the service and other consequential monetary benefits from the date the last candidate who was appointed prior to the petitioners pursuant to the selection process of the year 2012-13 {advertisement dated 02/05/2013 (Annex.1)} alongwith interest @ 12% p.a.; (ii) or in alternate, to grant all the service and other consequential monetary benefits notionally from the date the last candidate was appointed prior to the petitioners pursuant to the said selection process; (iii) any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in favour of the petitioner may also kindly be passed in the interest of justice; and (iv) cost of litigation may kindly be ordered to be awarded in favour of petitioners.” 3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by Mr.G.R. Punia Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajesh Punia; Mr. Sravan Kumar Sainee, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, are that the respondents issued an advertisement dated 02.05.2013 for the post of Veterinary Officer, in total 350 posts, and further it was increased to 525 posts (including backlog posts); the petitioners applied for the same. Thereafter, the examination was conducted and final results were declared on 05.07.2016. 3.1. Sravan Kumar Sainee, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, are that the respondents issued an advertisement dated 02.05.2013 for the post of Veterinary Officer, in total 350 posts, and further it was increased to 525 posts (including backlog posts); the petitioners applied for the same. Thereafter, the examination was conducted and final results were declared on 05.07.2016. 3.1. In pursuance of the examinations conducted for the recruitment year 2011-12, for a total 300 posts, out of which 150 posts were filled, and remaining 150 posts (68 posts of SC & 82 posts of ST) remained unfilled; in the matter of the said recruitment, the writ petitions (S.B.C.W.P. No. 8934/2012) and (S.B.C.W.P. 9716/2014) were preferred and the Hon’ble Court vide order dated 09.02.2015 allowed the petitions directing conducting of the interviews of the candidates, and thereafter, if they were found successful and eligible, they were directed to be accorded the requisite offer letter. The said order was challenged before the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court by way of Special Appeals (D.B.S.A.W. 311/2015 & 303/2015) and the same were dismissed on 15.07.2015. In pursuance of the said judgment, total 95 additional candidates (34 were of SC & ST) were selected vide order dated 22.04.2016. 3.2. Thereafter, the petitioners and other candidates filed a writ petition (S.B.C.W.P. No. 7694/2016 & other connected matters) before this Hon’ble Court seeking grant of appointment against the 150 vacant posts out of total 525 posts. The Hon’ble Court vide order dated 19.01.2017 disposed of the said petition while directing the respondent-State to fill 150 posts from amongst the remaining candidates from the waiting list so prepared in relation thereto. Subsequently, the State Government filed a review petition and the same was disposed of on 06.04.2017 modifying the order dated 19.01.2017 while directing filling up of the aforesaid posts in accordance with the merit as well as the Rules in vogue. But the compliance of the same was not made by the respondents, whereafter, a contempt petition was filed by the candidates concerned. 3.3. Thereafter, the respondent-department addressed a communication dated 28.08.2017 to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) and revised the category-wise bifurcation of the aforesaid posts and also requested the RPSC to recommend candidates for appointment as per the new determination. In pursuance of the said action, the RPSC issued revised merit list as well as waiting list. 3.3. Thereafter, the respondent-department addressed a communication dated 28.08.2017 to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) and revised the category-wise bifurcation of the aforesaid posts and also requested the RPSC to recommend candidates for appointment as per the new determination. In pursuance of the said action, the RPSC issued revised merit list as well as waiting list. However, the Hon’ble Court in the Writ Contempt Petition No. 804/2017 & other connected matters passed the order dated 29.01.2018. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent-State filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Hon’ble Apex Court, whereupon the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 21.01.2020 directed grant of appointment to 24 candidates as per the recommendation letter dated 25.01.2018 issued by the RPSC. 3.4. Subsequently, the respondents vide order dated 20.02.2020 granted appointments to the 24 candidates including the petitioners on the post in question; the petitioners joined the same accordingly. As per the petitioners, the delay in determination of the category was on the part of the respondents, and the petitioners have not been granted the services benefits at par with the other candidates who were granted appointment in the month of July, 2017 pursuant to the same recruitment process. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were eligible to be considered for appointment in question but due to error committed regarding the category-wise bifurcation of posts, the respondents granted the appointment to the petitioners on the post in question after delay of two and a half years, and therefore, the petitioners despite being fully entitled for all service benefits from the date the other candidates were being accorded the same, prior to the petitioners on the post in question in pursuance of the same recruitment, the petitioners were unlawfully deprived of such benefits by the respondents. 4.1. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in pursuance of the recruitment process for the year 2011-12, the candidates who were appointed later on, and were placed in the order of seniority below the last candidate originally appointed on the post in question, were also granted the benefits while treating their services from the date of the initial appointment granted to the originally appointed candidates. As per learned counsel, in that view of the matter, the petitioners being similarly situated deserve to be treated at par, meaning thereby, they are entitled for all the service benefits granted to the candidates appointed on the post in question prior to the petitioners. 4.2. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the respondents have denied the legitimate service and other consequential benefits to the petitioners at par with the last appointed candidates who were given appointment in July 2017 on the post in question without any reason, and therefore, the entire action of the respondents is not justified in law. 4.3. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the petitioners also filed a representation before the respondents but no action was taken by the respondents on that representation, and therefore, the denial of such service and other consequential benefits to the respondents is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Gaur, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the RPSC vide letter dated 05.07.2011 requested to fill 300 post of the Veterinary Officers by direct recruitment, and in this regard, the RPSC did not conduct interviews of the candidates as the colleges from where such candidates had obtained their degrees, were not recognized by the Veterinary Council of India (VCI), and against which the writ petition (W.P. No. 3452/2016) was filed and the same was allowed on 09.02.2015 by Hon’ble Court. Thereafter, 95 candidates were appointed on the post in question as per the aforesaid order dated 09.02.2015 and consent by the Department of Personnel and the Finance Department. 5.1. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that in compliance of the aforesaid order, the respondents vide order No.P.3 (2) PPA/2016 granted seniority and notional monetary benefits from the date of joining of the final selected candidate in selection year 2011 in the respondent-department on the basis of consent Department of Personnel. Therefore the petitioners have already been given the benefits and there is no further requirement to consider their cases for extension of the benefits from July, 2017. 6. Heard learned counsel of the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 7. This Court observes that the respondents issued the aforementioned advertisement for the Veterinary Officer. Therefore the petitioners have already been given the benefits and there is no further requirement to consider their cases for extension of the benefits from July, 2017. 6. Heard learned counsel of the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 7. This Court observes that the respondents issued the aforementioned advertisement for the Veterinary Officer. After the aforementioned litigation as well as order passed by this Hon’ble Court, the respondent-department issued a communication dated 28.08.2017 to the RPSC and revised the category-wise bifurcation of the mentioned posts and also requested the RPSC to recommend candidates for appointment as per the new determination. In pursuance of the said action, the RPSC issued revised merit list as well as waiting list. However, the Hon’ble Court in the Writ Contempt Petition No. 804/2017 & other connected matter, passed the order dated 29.01.2018. Aggrieved of the said order, the respondent-State filed a Special Leave Petition (S.L.P. No. 5341/2018) before the Hon’ble Apex Court, and the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 21.01.2020 directed grant of appointment to 24 candidates as per the recommendation letter dated 25.01.2018 issued by the RPSC. Thereafter, the respondents vide order dated 20.02.2020 granted appointment to 24 candidates including the petitioners on the post in question, and the petitioners joined the same accordingly. 8. This Court further observes that the respondents determined 24 posts for General and OBC Category candidates, and then issued the merit list, whereafter, the petitioners were appointed after the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 21.01.2020 and the respondents issued the appointment order dated 20.02.2020. Relevant portion of the order dated 21.01.2020 is reproduced hereunder-: “Counsel for the Respondents claim that they are to be appointed in view of the policy framed by the State Government vide letter dated 25.01.2018, which is placed on record. The letter recommends 24 candidates for appointment on the post of Veterinary Officer. Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, does not dispute the aforesaid letter. We accordingly direct that respondents covered by the letter dated 25.01.2018 shall be appointed on the post of Veterinary Officer within a period of one month from today.” 9. The letter recommends 24 candidates for appointment on the post of Veterinary Officer. Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, does not dispute the aforesaid letter. We accordingly direct that respondents covered by the letter dated 25.01.2018 shall be appointed on the post of Veterinary Officer within a period of one month from today.” 9. This Court also observes that out of 525 posts of the Veterinary Officer, 68 posts of Schedule Caste Category and 82 Schedule Tribe Category being backlog posts were revised to 47 posts of Schedule Caste and 69 posts for Schedule Tribe, in total 116 backlog posts, and then the respondents revised selection list on 03.01.2018; thereafter, the petitioners were appointed after the aforementioned order of the Hon’ble Apex Court, and therefore, the action of respondents is justified in law. 10. This Court also observes that there is no requirement to consider the petitioners’ case for grant of benefits from the year 2017, and the respondents issued the order on 20.02.2020, which is justified in law. 11. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioners in the present petitions. 12. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.