JUDGMENT : (Arun Monga, J.) : 1. The grievance of the petitioners inter alia stems from an order dated 21.09.2023 passed by respondent No.4. Vide this order, impugned herein, final selection of candidates, pursuant to the advertisement dated 16.12.2022 for the posts of teachers having a degree of graduation in English as an additional subject, has been kept at abeyance, pending the final outcome of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The petitioners seek a direction to recommend their names for appointment subject to the outcome of pending SLP, ibid. 2. Briefly speaking, the relevant facts as pleaded in the petition are as follows: 2.1. Rajasthan State Selection Board, issued an advertisement on 16.12.2022 for the posts of Teacher Grade-III (Level-II) (English) for non-TSP areas. 2.2. According to condition No.10.1 of the advertisement, the minimum qualification for the said post is 50% marks in either graduation or post-graduation along with a B.Ed. Sub-clause B thereof (condition No.10.1), envisages that graduation must be with English as an optional or equivalent subject. 2.3. The issue of whether candidates possessing a graduation degree with English as an additional subject with a B.Ed. are eligible for the post of Teacher Grade-III, Level-2 (English) was raised in an earlier selection process initiated vide an advertisement dated 11.09.2017. A committee was constituted by the education department to look into the same. The committee, on 13.07.2018, decided that candidates with a degree in English as an optional/collective/additional/honors subject are eligible for the said post. 2.4. Pursuant to the recommendation of the committee, the respondents offered appointments to candidates with a degree in English as an additional subject. Aggrieved by the said decision, some of the affected candidates challenged it by filing S.B.C.W.P. No.19113/2017: Dharmendra Kumar Bhinchar v. State of Raj. & Ors. at the Jaipur Bench. The writ petition was allowed on 21.08.2018, with the court observing that candidates with a degree in English as an additional subject are not eligible for the post of Teacher Grade-III, Level-2 (English). 2.5. The said Single Bench order dated 21.08.2018 was challenged by the affected candidates, as well as, by the State Government through intra court appeal, which was dismissed by a Division Bench on 25.03.2021. 2.6. However, during the appeal's pendency, the respondents issued appointment letters to candidates with a degree in English as an additional subject, contingent on the final outcome of the appeal. 2.6. However, during the appeal's pendency, the respondents issued appointment letters to candidates with a degree in English as an additional subject, contingent on the final outcome of the appeal. 2.7. A Special Leave to Appeal against the DB order/judgment dated 25.03.2021 is sub judice. During pendency thereof, the Apex Court, through an interim order 17.09.2021, has stayed the effect and operation of the challenged order. 2.8. Subsequently, in the fresh selection process initiated by advertisement dated 31.12.2021, candidates like the petitioners with a degree in English as an additional subject were not allowed to participate. Aggrieved, they filed a batch of writ petitions viz. SBCWP No.19658/2022: Sachin Mahiya v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vide an interim order dated 02.01.2023 passed therein, the respondents were directed to permit the petitioners and similarly situated candidates to provisionally participate in the selection process. 2.9. The aforesaid batch of writ petitions were disposed of on 27.03.2023observing that the provisional participation of candidates would be subject to the final outcome of the SLP pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court. 2.10. The respondents then published a list on 15.09.2023,in which the petitioners’ names were marked as ‘provisional’, and their appointments were withheld. Respondent No.3, by an order dated 21.09.2023, kept in abeyance the final selection of petitioners, having a degree with English as an additional subject, subject to the final outcome of the SLP. Hence, this writ petition. 3. The respondents' defense inter alia is that the controversy herein has a history of litigation and is currently pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In a similar case, the Apex Court in SLP No.26351/2013: Snehlata v. Delhi Government, determined that candidates having a degree with additional subject were not to be considered for recruitment on the post of Teacher. Following this, the Elementary Education Department of Rajasthan have issued an office order on 17.12.2021 directing not to include candidates having a degree with an additional subject in future recruitment for the posts in question. 4. In aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions of the learned counsels and perused the case file. 5. What emerges herein clearly is that claim of similarly situated candidates, like the petitioners' herein, was earlier accepted by the respondents by allowing them to participate in the selection process. Not only that, they were even offered appointments. 6. 4. In aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions of the learned counsels and perused the case file. 5. What emerges herein clearly is that claim of similarly situated candidates, like the petitioners' herein, was earlier accepted by the respondents by allowing them to participate in the selection process. Not only that, they were even offered appointments. 6. However, affected candidates challenged the said administrative decision which was set aside by the Jaipur Bench of this Court in S.B.C.W.P. No.19113/2017: Dharmendra Kumar Bhinchar & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Ors. Aggrieved candidates challenged the Single Judge's decision through intra-court appeals (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1143/2018: Pawan Swaroop Gour & Ors. v. Dharmendra Kumar Bhinchar & Ors.), which were dismissed by the Division Bench. 7. An SLP was filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court by the aggrieved candidates, which is sub judice. State Government defending its decision to allow candidates having degree with an additional subject, also filed a cross SLP against the judgment of Division Bench this Court, which too is pending adjudication. 8. Resultantly, as the SLPs are still pending, fate of the petitioners herein is naturally tied up with those who are the beneficiaries of the Division Bench's decision. During the pendency of the lis before the Supreme Court, this Court would, therefore, refrain to tread the same path already traversed by both the Single and Division Benches in past who have expressed their views vide their respective judgments, ibid. 9. The writ petitioners are accordingly granted liberty to approach the respondents depending upon, and after the outcome of pending SLPs. In the interregnum, this Court ought not to and is not inclined to issue any interim directions during the pendency of the SLPs for provisional appointments as are being sought by the petitioners. Moreover, the current recruitment is based on an advertisement dated 16.12.2022, and it transpires that respondents have rightly decided, across board, not to make any more provisional appointments (as was done in past)to avoid any equitable rights being conferred on such candidates at later stage, should the final decision turn out against them. 10. With the aforesaid observations, writ petitions are disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.