ORDER : 1. Grievance of the petitioner herein arises out of the inaction on the part of the respondents in according her seniority benefit pursuant to the advertisement dated 14.02.2013 allegedly in defiance of order dated 08.05.2018 passed by this Court and order dated 04.01.2023 (Annexure-11) passed by Respondent No.4. 2. Brief facts are: - 2.1 The petitioner participated in the Direct Recruitment of LDC, 2013 and despite eligibility, she was not extended appointment order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10482/2015, which was decided vide order dated 08.05.2018, in the light of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Har Karan Ram Bugalia Vs. State & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal No. 1375/2014, decided on 29.07.2015) and the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the aforementioned precedent law within a period of 30 days by passing a speaking order. 2.2 During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was given appointment after more than 4 years vide order dated 05.09.2017. Petitioner joined on the post of LDC at Panchayat Samiti, Barmer. After completion of probation period of 2 years i.e. on 04.09.2019, the petitioner was confirmed in the services and by a separate order dated 18.10.2019, the pay-scale was revised accordingly. 2.3 Since the order dated 08.05.2018 passed by this Court was not complied with by the respondent department and the petitioner was not treated in service w.e.f. the date other similarly situated candidates were given appointment and the fixation of her pay on notional basis was not done hence, a contempt petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1195/2019 was filed by the petitioner on 01.10.2019. During the pendency of this contempt petition, the respondent department passed an order dated 04.01.2023, wherein the representation of the petitioner was accepted and the sanction was issued to give seniority to the petitioner equal to the less merit holder candidate than the petitioner and the grant of notional benefits was sanctioned in accordance with the rules. The contempt petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed in light of the above order dated 04.01.2023 with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh, if any grievance persists. The contempt petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed in light of the above order dated 04.01.2023 with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh, if any grievance persists. 2.4 Despite passing of the order dated 04.01.2023, the lower meritorious candidates were given appointment to the post of UDC and when the provisional seniority list of UDC (w.e.f. 01.04.2022) dated 03.02.2023 was published, the name of the petitioner was not shown. The petitioner filed a representation dated 14.02.2023 raising her objections, but without taking cognizance of her grievance, the final seniority list of UDC was published vide order dated 13.07.2023 and the petitioner was not accorded the benefit of seniority. 2.5 Petitioner again approached the respondents by way of a representation dated 17.07.2023, but without deciding the objections raised by the petitioner, the respondent department issued the promotion list of UDC to AAO on 11.08.2023 and promoted the persons who were lower in merit than the petitioner. The petitioner, being denied the actual benefit arising out of the order dated 08.05.2018 passed by this Court and order dated 04.01.2023 passed by the respondent department, filed the instant writ petition. 3. Short controversy involved herein is whether the petitioner who was accorded the benefit of appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk pursuant to an earlier foray of litigation instituted by her vide S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10482/2015 which was allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order / judgment dated 08.05.2018 is entitled to the consequential benefits of service including seniority in accordance with her merit viz-a-viz her counterparts who participated in the same selection process. 4. The answer to the aforesaid question is in affirmative. Let us examine how. 5. First and foremost, the relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment pursuant to which petitioner was given appointment may be seen. The relevant part of same is reproduced hereinbelow: - “1. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Har Karan Ram Bugalia Vs. State & Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.1375/2014, decided on 29.07.2015). The said judgment reads as under :- “By the notification dated 30.10.2006, applications were invited by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission from the eligible aspirants for appointment to the post of Teacher Grade III in primary/upper primary schools in the State of Rajasthan. State & Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.1375/2014, decided on 29.07.2015). The said judgment reads as under :- “By the notification dated 30.10.2006, applications were invited by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission from the eligible aspirants for appointment to the post of Teacher Grade III in primary/upper primary schools in the State of Rajasthan. In the notification aforesaid, it was made clear that persons appearing in the qualifying examination may face the process of selection but they have to acquire the qualification aforesaid before 16.3.2007. The petitioner at the time of submitting application form in prescribed performa was undergoing the course of bachelor in education result of which was declared on 01.3.2007 by Choudhary Charan Singh University, Merath. His result was withheld as he failed to submit his migration certificate to the University aforesaid. On submitting the migration certificate, result of the appellant petitioner was declared on 24.3.2007. Subsequent to that on 12.1.2008 the District Education Officer-cum-Additional Chief Executive Officer (Elementary Education), Zila Parishad, Jodhpur provided appointment to 40 persons as Teacher Grade III as a consequence to the process of selection initiated under the notification dated 30.10.2006. The appellant petitioner immediately thereafter submitted representation with the respondent with an assertion that he is entitled for appointment as a person less meritorious to him was employed to the post of as Teacher Grade III. The appointment, however, was not accorded to him as the verification of his qualification was then pending. The respondents after getting the qualification of the petitioner verified from the aforesaid University i.e. Choudhary Charan Singh University, Merath accorded appointment to him as Teacher Grade-III under an order dated 20.7.2011 passed by the District Education Officer-cum-Executive Chief Officer (Elementary Education), Zila Parishad, Jodhpur. By way of submitting a representation to the respondents the petitioner urged for grant of service benefits including seniority and fixation of his pay from the date the same was given to other similarly situated persons including the person said to be less meritorious to him. On having no positive result on the part of the respondents the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing petition for writ that came to be dismissed by the judgment impugned dated 09.7.2014. On having no positive result on the part of the respondents the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing petition for writ that came to be dismissed by the judgment impugned dated 09.7.2014. The learned Single Bench while dismissing the petition for writ held that no service benefits can be extended to the appellant petitioner as whatever delay occurred in grant of appointment was not due to any lapse on the part of the respondents but for the time consumed in verification of the qualification possessed by the petitioner from the institution concerned. In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant petitioner is that the appointment was accorded to him as a consequence to the process of selection initiated under the notification dated 30.10.2006 and therefore, his case cannot be distinguished with the case of the persons who were employed under order dated 12.1.2008. According to learned counsel, the delay in verification of the documents was occurred due to administrative reasons and not because of him, therefore, service benefits cannot be denied to him. It is submitted that if the respondents do not allow seniority to the petitioner as per his merit and also not make fixation of his pay from the date the persons junior to him were employed then the same shall be highly discriminatory. While opposing the it is submitted by counsel for the respondents that the time consumed in verification of the documents is not a lapse on part of the respondent, therefore, no benefit as claimed can be given. As per the respondents, the learned Single Bench rightly arrived at the conclusion that the delay occurred in the matter was due to the time consumed in verification of the documents and that is not because of employer, therefore, the service benefits cannot be extended to the petitioner. We do not find any merit with the stand taken by the respondents. It is not in dispute that the appointment was given to the petitioner as a consequence to the process of selection initiated under the notification dated 30.10.2006. The respondents considered his candidature and find him eligible to be recruited as Teacher Grade-III. An appointment too was given by them after getting the documents verified. It is not in dispute that the appointment was given to the petitioner as a consequence to the process of selection initiated under the notification dated 30.10.2006. The respondents considered his candidature and find him eligible to be recruited as Teacher Grade-III. An appointment too was given by them after getting the documents verified. True it is the delay occurred is not solely due to the respondents, but the relief as claimed by the petitioner, if not given then that shall be quite unjust as the persons who faced selection with him and employed in the year 2008 shall remain senior to him irrespective of the fact that some out of them were less meritorious. Such persons shall also get wages more than the appellant, though employed through a same process. He will also loose his other rights such as leave computation for the period he has not worked with the respondents. The loss caused to him is required to be compensated at least by extending service benefits to him on notional basis and further by determining his seniority inter-se by taking into consideration his merit in the process of selection. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The judgment impugned dated 09.7.2014 is set aside. The appeal preferred by the appellant is allowed in part. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner in service with effect from 12.1.2008 and shall also make fixation of his pay on notional basis without making actual payment of wages. The petitioner shall also be entitled to get his seniority determined as per his merit in the select list prepared as a consequence to the process of selection initiated under notification dated 30.10.2006. No order as to cost.” In light of the aforequoted judgment, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the aforementioned precedent law within a period of 30 days by passing a speaking order strictly in accordance with law.” 6. My attention has been drawn to an administrative order dated 04.01.2023 (Annexure-11) vide which petitioner was given appointment. A perusal of the said order clearly reflects that appointment was given with notional benefits along with seniority as per her merit in the selection process equivalent to the candidates who were immediately below the petitioner in the merit list. 7. My attention has been drawn to an administrative order dated 04.01.2023 (Annexure-11) vide which petitioner was given appointment. A perusal of the said order clearly reflects that appointment was given with notional benefits along with seniority as per her merit in the selection process equivalent to the candidates who were immediately below the petitioner in the merit list. 7. Not only that, subsequent thereto, vide another order dated 22.03.2023 (Annexure-13), the person who was immediately below the petitioner in the merit list was also identified who is stated to be one Jay Singh. 8. Thereafter, it appears that due to objections raised by some official in the office of Respondent No. 4 that seniority has to be given as per Rule 285 of Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 which envisages that the seniority it has to be from the date of joining, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seek parity with her counterparts who had joined in service prior in time. 9. No doubt, the Rule envisages that seniority cannot be given prior to the date of joining. However, it is to be read to mean that all those candidates who have participated in the same selection process shall be given seniority with effect from the date when they joined the service so that there is no heartburn by change of seniority based on shifting of dates for one reason or the other. 10. Concededly, the petitioner had participated in the selection process pursuant to the Advertisement of 2013 which resulted in her selection and all the other candidates who were also successful pursuant to the same very advertisement have been given seniority from the joining date. 11. Had the respondent been not errant in not granting the benefit of the performance to the petitioner at the first instance, admittedly he would have been entitled to seniority from the date of joining. For no fault of her, on one hand, he was made to litigate by instituting proceedings and ultimately when it was found that indeed it was the department’s error which resulted in her non-selection, an administrative order dated 04.01.2023 was correctly passed relying on a D.B. judgment of this Court rendered in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1375/2014, decided on 29.07.2015 and yet, subsequently, on the basis of frivolous objections raised by some officials, the benefits thereof has not been given. 12. 12. Accordingly, as an upshot of my discussion, writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to accord seniority to the petitioner with effect from the same date as given to her counterparts, pursuant to the advertisement dated 14.02.2013. 13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.