ORDER : 1. Meted out with hostile discrimination by the respondents, Asgar Ali Usta is before this Court on account of being the torchbearer for his counter parts who were, at the relevant time, working on contractual posts as lecturers along with him for more than 10 years, but their services were summarily dispensed with on the ostensible ground that regular appointments were to be made for the same very post in question. Petitioner is similarly situated with his other peer who all, being over aged, could not compete for the regular appointment on the advertised posts. 2. Conceded case of the petitioners is that they cannot seek continuation on the contractual post in perpetuity, more particularly when the suitable incumbents are available by way of regular appointment. 3. However, limited grievance of the petitioner is that, given his past longevity of service of more than 10 years, in case the posts are still vacant and, there are not enough suitable regular appointees available, then he ought to be given preference for continuing in service on contractual basis as before. 4. It is in aforesaid background, that this is forth foray of the petitioner before this Court. First being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.23488/2017 (Dr. Hemendra Garg Vs. State of Rajasthan and other connected matters) seeking continuation on contractual post in the absence of regular appointee being there. Said claim was rejected as the writ petition was dismissed vide order/judgment dated 03.04.2019 (Annexure-7). 5. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an intra-Court Appeal vide D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 806/2019 (Asgar Ali Usta Vs. State of Rajasthan) which was accepted vide a judgment dated 17.07.2019 (Annexure-8), which being apposite, the relevant extract of the same is reproduced hereinbelow: “5. The appellant/petitioner was working as Lecturer in Economics. According to the record, 41 regular posts of Lecturers were filled by selected candidates. It is, however, not clear whether further regular vacancies in category of Lecturers (Economics) exists. Therefore, in line with prevision decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in Satish Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.). D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) (affirmed in SLP), the respondents, are hereby directed to :- I) Assess the number of vacancies in the cadre of regular Lecturers in Economics. Therefore, in line with prevision decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in Satish Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.). D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) (affirmed in SLP), the respondents, are hereby directed to :- I) Assess the number of vacancies in the cadre of regular Lecturers in Economics. II) In case, all the posts are not filled, consider and appoint the appellant/petitioner in its employment and continue him in service till replacements are found regularly on due completion of the recruitment process by Rajasthan Public Service Commission. III) The State shall not, under any circumstance, fill the posts by any contractual, temporary employee or by offering appointment to a retired individual on replacement basis. 6. The present appeal and pending applications are disposed of in the above terms.” 6. Apropos, the happiness of the petitioner turned out to be short lived, as much to his chagrin, while some of the other contractual lecturers were accorded the benefit of continuing in service, of course, on contract basis, but for reasons best known to the respondents, petitioner was not inducted back on contract. Notwithstanding, that there was a vacancy on the post in question as the regular incumbents were not available. 7. This resulted in third foray by way of a contempt petition filed by the petitioner vide D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 388/2021. However, vide an order dated 08.07.2021, contempt petition was dismissed inter alia on the ground that it was not shown as to whether there were any posts still vacant after filling up of the regular posts of lecturers and the petitioner, in any case, had invoked the contempt jurisdiction after a lapse of two years and, therefore, the Division Bench observed that it did not appear to be a case of willful disobedience on the part of the respondents. 8. Fortified with the dismissal of the contempt petition, the respondents seem to have gathered the impression that now the only way to keep the petitioner high and dry was to not accord him the benefit, even if vacancies were available. The judgment rendered by the Division Bench directing them to induct the contractual lecturers, subject to vacancy was given a complete short shrift. To be noted, that D.B. Appeal Writ No. 806/2019 in the appeal filed by petitioner has attained finality and cannot be violated by simply putting it under the carpet. 9. The judgment rendered by the Division Bench directing them to induct the contractual lecturers, subject to vacancy was given a complete short shrift. To be noted, that D.B. Appeal Writ No. 806/2019 in the appeal filed by petitioner has attained finality and cannot be violated by simply putting it under the carpet. 9. Matter was in fact earlier also heard by me on 04.01.2024 when following order was passed :- “In view of the peculiar averments contained in the petition that the petitioner being the torch bearer of the entire lis, which culminated by way of division Bench judgment rendered in division Bench appeal No 806/2019, all his other counterparts have through been given the benefit thereof, but the petitioner himself has still left high and dry. The Commissioner, College Education Department, Shiksha Sankul, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, to join through VC on the next date of hearing to explain as to why similar benefit has not been conferred on the petitioner compelling him to seek indulgence of this Court by multiplicity of litigation. Accordingly, the early hearing application no. 01/23 is allowed and the second early hearing application bearing no. 02/23 is disposed of as infructuous. List the matter on 11.01.2024.” 10. Today, matter is being heard in the second round as learned counsel appearing for the respondents stated in the morning that the concerned officer who was directed to join through video conferencing was busy in this Court at Jaipur Bench. The matter was, therefore, passed over to be heard after lunch in the second half. Even at 03:30 p.m., there is no justification forthcoming as to why the Commissioner, College Education Department has not joined the proceedings through video conference. 11. This Court is unable to comprehend the willful non-compliance on the part of the aforesaid official coupled with careless attitude by not bothering to join VC and deprecates such utter disregard to the majesty of the Court. 12. Be that as it may, no answer is forthcoming to any of the observations made hereinabove by me. In any case, in view of the Division Bench Appellate judgment ibid, I see no reason as to why the benefit of the same be not accorded to the petitioner. 13. In the premise, writ petition is allowed. 12. Be that as it may, no answer is forthcoming to any of the observations made hereinabove by me. In any case, in view of the Division Bench Appellate judgment ibid, I see no reason as to why the benefit of the same be not accorded to the petitioner. 13. In the premise, writ petition is allowed. This Court was inclined to impose heavy costs, but on the earnest request of learned counsel for the respondents, same is not being done. 14. Furthermore, it is made clear that the contractual appointment to the petitioner shall be offered only if there is a requirement of service and if there is a vacancy existing as on today. 15. It is also made clear that in case vacancy is indeed available, as has been strenuously canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioners and, the services against same very vacancy are needed, then the appointment letter to the petitioner shall be issued within 6 weeks from today by the competent authority.