ORDER : 1. Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC accepts notice on behalf of respondents. 2. Application No.01/2025 is filed by learned counsel for petitioners to decide all connected matters in accordance with judgment dated 01.05.2025 in SBCWP No. 7728/2025 titled as Leela Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. passed by a Co-ordinate Bench at Principal Seat, Jodhpur. 3. These writ petitions filed with common question of law, hence tagged together and disposed at this stage with consent of the counsels for the parties as Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC put in appearance on behalf of respondents in all the matters. 4. Office is directed to reflect name of Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC as counsel for respondent. 5. For ready reference, we are reproducing prayer of lead matter Harish Kumar Yadav and Ors. and same is reproduced as under: “(i) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby the order dated 15/01/2025 bearing no. F20(492)NHM/HR/CSR 22/RESIGNATION/PART/2024/74 may be quashed qua the petitioners. (ii) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby the respondents may be directed to release the documents of the writ petitioners and relieving orders be issued in order for the Writ Petitioners to join their services as Nursing Officers in pursuance to the appointment order dated 09.01.2025. (iii) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the respondents be directed to give appointment to the petitioners as Nursing Officers after having been declared successful in the recruitment process for the post of Nursing Officer with all consequential benefits.” 6. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that they were appointed on post of Community Health Officer (CHO) on contractual basis in pursuant to advertisement dated 31.08.2020 and one of the condition of the appointment was that the candidate has to submit a bond of Rs. 5 lacs on a non- judicial stamp paper of Rs. 500/- duly notarized to serve at SHC-HWC for a period of 5years before joining the bridge course. 5 lacs on a non- judicial stamp paper of Rs. 500/- duly notarized to serve at SHC-HWC for a period of 5years before joining the bridge course. He further submitted that in pursuant to advertisement dated 05.05.2023, the petitioners have applied for the post of Nursing Officer and in pursuant to guidelines for document verification for said post, the candidature of petitioners were either declined on the ground that petitioners have executed an employment bond in pursuant to advertisement dated 31.08.2020 for a period of 5 years or they have not deposited bond amount, so they are not eligible for appointment for the post of Nursing Officer. He further submitted that either the petitioners were forced to deposit Rs. 5 lac or they were not afforded appointment in pursuant to selection. 7. Learned counsel for petitioners while pursuing application No.01/2025 in light of order dated 01.05.2025 in case of Leela Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra) by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur submitted that subsequent to advertisement dated 31.08.2020 the State Government has promulgated Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Post Rules, 2022 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Rules of 2022’) and in pursuant to said rules, the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis for a fresh term of 5years. He further submitted that Rules of 2022 does not prescribe for any such bond as prescribed under the advertisement dated 31.08.2020, therefore the respondents cannot pursue and execute employment bond executed by the petitioners in pursuant to advertisement dated 31.08.2020. He also submitted that both the posts are in same department under the Government of Rajasthan. 8. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondents and he submitted that petitioners, after selection in pursuant to advertisement dated 31.08.2020 were sent for bridge course and thereafter they have acquired a specific qualification to serve common man of the State. He further submitted that respondents have spent money from the State Exchequer to upgrade skills of present petitioners, therefore this Hon’ble Court cannot insist upon respondents for non-implementation of conditions of bond. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 10. Identical issue was considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Leela Kumari (supra), after placing reliance upon judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Manish Devi Meena Vs. JVVNL and Anr. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 10. Identical issue was considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Leela Kumari (supra), after placing reliance upon judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Manish Devi Meena Vs. JVVNL and Anr. (SB CWP No. 385/2021 decided on 15.03.2021) and affirmed by Division Bench of this Court in DB Special Appeal Writ No. 304/2021 on 16.04.2021 by this Court, has observed as under: “12. This Court is of the clear opinion that the condition as prescribed in advertisement dated 31.08.2020 shall no more govern the present petitioner once she had been afforded appointment vide a fresh appointment order in terms of Rules of2022. Once an incumbent has been afforded appointment vide afresh appointment order, she would definitely be governed by the said order and the Rules governing the said appointment. 13. Admittedly, Rules of 2022 do not prescribe for any condition of a bond being furnished by the candidate. Further, appointment order dated 26.04.2023 (Annexure-6) also does not prescribe for any such condition. Had the intent of the State been to ensure the compliance of the bonds as furnished by the incumbents in terms of the advertisement in the year 2020, definitely a specific condition to the said effect would have been incorporated in the Rules of 2022. The same having not been incorporated, clarifies that it was never the intent of the legislature to enforce the said condition. 14. Further, even the order of appointment dated 26.04.2023 (Annexure-6) which otherwise lays down the specific conditions of appointment, does not specify any such condition of a bond. 15. In the opinion of this Court, even if there was any condition in the earlier advertisement dated 31.08.2020, the same effectively lost its efficacy after the petitioner having been afforded a fresh appointment by virtue of a fresh appointment order and that too in terms of the Rules of 2022 which were not in existence in the year 2020. The petitioner would definitely be governed by the Rules of 2022 only and she can no more be governed by any of the condition of advertisement dated 31.08.2020. 16. Further, there is one more aspect of the matter. Admittedly, the petitioner has been appointed as a ‘Nursing Officer’ in pursuance to a recruitment process undertaken by the State Government. The petitioner would definitely be governed by the Rules of 2022 only and she can no more be governed by any of the condition of advertisement dated 31.08.2020. 16. Further, there is one more aspect of the matter. Admittedly, the petitioner has been appointed as a ‘Nursing Officer’ in pursuance to a recruitment process undertaken by the State Government. That is to say, she would now also be working with the State Government only. Meaning thereby, the skills as gained by her during the training as imparted during her contractual employment, shall now be used in her job as a ‘Nursing Officer’ with the State Government. It is incomprehensible as to how can it be termed to be a financial loss to the State Government when an employee who had been imparted training for some particular contractual job, continues to serve the State Government although, on regular basis. The demand for deposit of the bond amount proves out to be irrational and illogical on this count too. By all means, the direction of the State Authorities for deposit of the bond amount is bad in the eyes of law and the same cannot be upheld. 17. So far as the judgment in the case of Manisha Devi (supra)is concerned, the ratio of the same would not apply to the present matter, the same being clearly distinguishable. In the said case, the petitioner therein was appointed after furnishing the specific bond and she having been subsequently appointed qua some other service, sought direction to be relieved. Therein, the Court observed that she was bound by the conditions of her appointment. Herein, condition of the advertisement itself lost its existence/efficacy by virtue of the fresh appointment order and therefore, the said condition would not govern the present petitioner. 18. In view of the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is allowed. The communication dated 15.01.2025 (Annexure- 11) and subsequent order dated 22.01.2025 (Annexure-12) are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents shall not pressurize the petitioner to comply with the bond dated 18.09.2021 (Annexure-4) as furnished by her and no punitive action shall be taken against her for non-compliance of the same. 11. The communication dated 15.01.2025 (Annexure- 11) and subsequent order dated 22.01.2025 (Annexure-12) are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents shall not pressurize the petitioner to comply with the bond dated 18.09.2021 (Annexure-4) as furnished by her and no punitive action shall be taken against her for non-compliance of the same. 11. Having considered aforesaid, it is apparent on record that petitioners were appointed by the respondents on contractual basis of CHO at SHC and HWCs as per operational guidelines of Ayushman Bharat Comprehensive Primary Health Care through Health and Wellness Centres. Thereafter the petitioners were selected for bridge course and they executed a condition to bound themselves to serve at SHC and HWC for a period of five years. In the meanwhile, Rules of 2022 came into force and petitioners were give a fresh appointment order, wherein there is no such condition in fresh appointment order which are also placed on record, therefore these petitions are allowed against the respondents in following terms: (i) Condition No.17 which is reproduced as under: “Shortlisted candidate shall have to submit a Bond of Five Lacs on Rs. 500 Non Judicial Stamp paper duly notarized to serve at SHC-HWC for a periof of 5 years before joining the Bridge Course,” is bad in eye of law in accordance with ratio laid down by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in case of Leela Kumari (supra). (ii) Any further communication in pursuant to condition No.17 for recovery of Rs. 5 lacs is also bad and respondents are not entitled to recovery of any amount against the said bond executed in pursuant to advt. dated 31.08.2020. (iii) The petitioners are entitled for uninterrupted participation and posting in pursuant to advt. dated 05.05.2023, if they are otherwise eligible and their candidature cannot be rejected only on ground of condition No.17 in advt. dated 31.08.2020 (supra). (iv) If any of the petitioner(s) has deposited Rs. 5 lacs either by cash or demand draft then he/she is at liberty to make a representation to respondents for refund of said amount, deposited by him/her. The respondents are under an obligation to decide the representation with a period of 30 days from date of receipt of representation under intimation to the petitioner(s). (v) If petitioner(s) is still aggrieved, he/she is free to resort to avail remedy, as available under the law. 12. The respondents are under an obligation to decide the representation with a period of 30 days from date of receipt of representation under intimation to the petitioner(s). (v) If petitioner(s) is still aggrieved, he/she is free to resort to avail remedy, as available under the law. 12. Accordingly, writ petitions along with pending application, if any, stands disposed of.