ORDER Arun Monga, J. - Grievance of the petitioner arises out of the inaction on the part of the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) in general category pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.01.2015 (Annexure-11) along with all consequential benefits. 2. Brief relevant facts first: 2.1. On January 12, 2015, respondent No. 3 issued an advertisement inviting applications for the position of Lecturer in various subjects. The petitioner, possessing the required qualifications, applied for the position of Lecturer (Sanskrit) and was subsequently declared successful in the recruitment process, leading to an invitation for an interview. 2.2. On August 28, 2018, respondent No. 3 announced the revised result for the position of college Lecturer (Sanskrit) and released a select list along with cut-off marks, wherein one position in the general (male) category was kept vacant due to interim directions passed by this court in another collateral proceedings instituted by another candidate by filing a writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1796/2015). 2.4. Petitioner's name was second on the reserve list, and the candidate listed first was appointed through the operation of the reserve list. The petitioner was informed by the respondents' office that one position remained vacant due to a candidate filing a writ petition, which was pending before the Court. As an interim order was issued, the petitioner would be appointed following the Court's decision on the pending writ. As per the reserve list the petitioner was provisionally selected. 2.5. Subsequently, aforesaid writ petition filed by the other candidate was dismissed by this Court. The petitioner promptly then submitted a representation to the respondents, requesting consideration for his appointment. However, no action was taken by the respondents. Hence the present writ petition. 3. Defense of the respondents is that on the commencement of a fresh next recruitment process, previous selections and waiting lists become void. Referring to the case (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1796/2015) i.e. the previous petition by a physically challenged candidate, one post was indeed kept vacant temporarily, and after dismissal of the petition, the petitioner's claim to the vacant post is invalidated since the new recruitment process had already begun, thus warranting the dismissal of the petition. 4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions of the learned counsel. 5. 4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions of the learned counsel. 5. The controversy at hand essentially pivots around one question i.e. Whether a candidate can be granted the advantage of his merit position in the waiting list on vacation of the interim stay granted by Court during the selection process ? 6. The answer to aforesaid question is in affirmative, provided that (i) the candidate higher in merit did not join during the waiting list period, and (ii) the vacancy is within the same category in which the candidate had applied. Let us now examine the how and why of it in greater details. 7. It is undisputed that one successful candidate in the general category, according to the merit list, did not take up his available position. 8. During the selection process, one candidate filed a writ petition (No. 1796/2015, Akshay Surana Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) asserting that two posts should be allocated for physically handicapped candidates. Should this claim be upheld, the candidate had sought his appointment in the physically handicapped category in accordance with the law. Pending the writ proceedings, an interim order dated 27.02.2023 directed that one post in the general category not be filled to maintain equity in case the physically handicapped candidate's claim was accepted. 9. The aforementioned writ petition was eventually dismissed, and consequently, the interim order stood vacated. Subsequently, the petitioner asserted his claim on a post that would have rightfully been his, had it not been for the pending litigation initiated by the physically handicapped candidate. 10. Resistance to the claim of the petitioner stems out of a notification dated 26.04.2018 (Annexure-R/1) issued by the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Personnel, which envisages that on commencement of next new fresh recruitment process the waiting list of previous selection process lapses and cannot be given effect. 11. Pleaded case of the petitioner is that despite being selected for the position, he was not appointed. Consequently, feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition (SBCWP No. 2395/2022) before this Court, seeking appointment as a lecturer (Sanskrit). However, a co-ordinate bench of this Court vide an order/judgment dated 15.02.2022, dismissed the writ petition, citing the petitioner's awareness of the reason for nonappointment, namely, an interim order granted by the Court. Consequently, feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition (SBCWP No. 2395/2022) before this Court, seeking appointment as a lecturer (Sanskrit). However, a co-ordinate bench of this Court vide an order/judgment dated 15.02.2022, dismissed the writ petition, citing the petitioner's awareness of the reason for nonappointment, namely, an interim order granted by the Court. Albeit, this Court granted liberty to the respondents to consider candidature of petitioner in case post in question is not allotted to PH candidate and falls in general category. 12. With no other recourse, the petitioner was advised to file an application to be impleaded as a party respondent in the pending writ petition no. 1796/2015 (Akshay Surana Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors). Subsequently, after hearing the counsel for the parties, the Court dismissed the writ petition itself, finding it devoid of merit. 13. Following the dismissal of the aforementioned writ petition, the petitioner's hopes brightened up in view of judgment/order dated 15.02.2022 supra, rendered in the previous writ petition filed by him. He promptly submitted a representation dated 28.02.2023 before respondents No. 2 and 3, requesting appointment as a lecturer in Sanskrit. However, his efforts yielded no response. 14. Instead of granting the petitioner the benefit of their merit, the respondents' contend that, during the pendency of the writ petition, a subsequent selection process had commenced through an advertisement in 2020. Therefore, their learned counsel argues, that the vacant post cannot be given to the petitioner. 15. I find the argument lacking in substance and quite insipid. It is evident that, during the pendency of the earlier writ petition filed by an PH candidate, the post in question remained under interim protection and its filling up was kept at abeyance. The subsequent advertisement thus could not have included the aforementioned post in the vacancies to be filled up. Even if factored in, the same would be invalid being in violation of the interim orders passed by this Court. The notification dated 26.04.2018, ibid, is, therefore, not applicable in the present case. 16. On a Court query to learned counsel for the respondents, it is confirmed that the said post remains unfilled till date. Consequently, it so appears, that the petitioner has been unjustly deprived of his rightful merit for no fault of his. He ought be appointed to the said post as his merit remains uncontested by the department/recruitment agency. 17. 16. On a Court query to learned counsel for the respondents, it is confirmed that the said post remains unfilled till date. Consequently, it so appears, that the petitioner has been unjustly deprived of his rightful merit for no fault of his. He ought be appointed to the said post as his merit remains uncontested by the department/recruitment agency. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to issue appointment letter to the petitioner upon verification of his other credentials in accordance with law. 18. Petitioner shall be given all the notional benefits with effect from the same date as his counterparts were appointed including seniority in accordance with applicable service rules. However, no monetary benefits should be admissible to the petitioner on the principle of 'No Work No Pay.' 19. Pending application(s), if any shall stand disposed of.