ORDER : ARUN MONGA, J. 1. Petitioner herein, aspirant to become Teacher, inter-alia, seeks issuance of appropriate writ, order and / or direction commanding the respondents to grant her appointment on the post of Teacher Level-I with all consequential benefits, pursuant to advertisement dated 04.09.2013 (Annex.1). 2. Brief facts first. On February 11, 2011, the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) issued guidelines for the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET). In accordance with these guidelines, the Rajasthan Teacher Eligibility Test (RTET) was conducted by the State Government, and the petitioner appeared for and successfully cleared the examination in 2012. Subsequently, on16.06.2013, the State Government issued a notification regarding seat reservations in the Tribal Sub-Plan (TSP) area. The notification stipulated that 45% of the seats would be reserved for Scheduled Tribe (ST) candidates, 5% for Scheduled Caste (SC) candidates, and the remaining 50% for General candidates residing within the TSP area. 2.1 On 04.09.2013, the respondents issued an advertisement for the direct recruitment of 20,000 Teacher Grade-III (Level I & II) posts. The petitioner, being eligible, applied for the position of Teacher Grade-III (Level I) under the OBC (Women) category, indicating her residence in the TSP area. 2.2 Subsequently, the 16.06.2013 reservation notification was quashed by this Court. As a result, the State Government issued a revised notification on 04.07.2016, which amended the earlier reservation policy. Under the new guidelines, the 50% seats initially reserved for TSP General candidates were now to be filled by residents of the TSP area, regardless of their caste. 2.3 The respondents later announced the results of the recruitment process. Although the petitioner initially did not meet the merit threshold with a score of 128.33 marks, the results were subsequently revised. Following the revision, the cut-off for the TSP General (Women) category was set at 111.27 marks, and the petitioner’s score qualified her for merit in this category. 2.4 Despite qualifying under the revised results, the petitioner was not considered for the TSP General (Women) category because she had not selected this category in her online application. On 06.09.2017, the petitioner requested the authorities to reconsider her eligibility for the TSP General (Women) category. However, her request was rejected. 2.5 Aggrieved, the petitioner filed SB Civil Writ Petition No. 11796/2017, which was disposed of on 04.12.2017, directing the petitioner to submit a representation for review. On 06.09.2017, the petitioner requested the authorities to reconsider her eligibility for the TSP General (Women) category. However, her request was rejected. 2.5 Aggrieved, the petitioner filed SB Civil Writ Petition No. 11796/2017, which was disposed of on 04.12.2017, directing the petitioner to submit a representation for review. Despite this, the respondents rejected her representation on 14.12.2017, stating that she had since received a 5% relaxation for the School Teaching Certificate (‘STC’) course in 2011 and did not meet the OBC category cutoff. The respondent also claimed that her previous 5% relaxation in the STC course made her ineligible to be considered in TSP area, and she should be treated as an OBC candidate. 2.6 The petitioner contends that the 5% relaxation applied solely to her STC course and should not affect her eligibility for the current selection process. She maintains that as a resident of the TSP area, she should be treated as a TSP candidate, rather than being categorized under OBC. Hence, the instant petition. 3. Stand taken by the respondents to oppose the writ petition is contained in para 11 & 12 of the reply which are as follows:- “11-12.That as regards contents of para no.11 and 12 of the writ petition, suffice it to state that clause-7 of the recruitment notification provides academic / professional qualification of a candidate. It is provided that a candidate is required to have 50% marks in his/her Senior Secondary examination. The petitioner was having 46.31% marks in her Senior Secondary examination. She availed the benefit of 5% relaxation as against prescribed qualification which was part of recruitment process and falls in the category of special concession. The petitioner was, thus, entitled to be counted as against OBC-WE category candidate and not as against reserved TSP-WE category candidate. The cut-off marks in the OBC-WE category were 156.43, whereas, petitioner has secured merely 128.33 marks in the revised result.” 4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and perused the case file. 5. At the very outset pertinent it is to notice that this is the second foray of the petitioner seeking the same relief as earlier she had approached this Court vide SBCWP No. 11796/2017, which was disposed of by passing the following order :- “1. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and perused the case file. 5. At the very outset pertinent it is to notice that this is the second foray of the petitioner seeking the same relief as earlier she had approached this Court vide SBCWP No. 11796/2017, which was disposed of by passing the following order :- “1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs :- “A. By an appropriate writ order or direction, any order already passed or passed during pendency of writ petition denying appointment to the petitioner on the post of Teacher Grade III (Level-I) in pursuance to the advertisement may kindly be quashed and set aside. B. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to treat the petitioner as TSP candidate being resident of TSP Area Tehsil Jhadlo (PH) District Udaipur. C. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to grant appointment to the petitioner on the post of Teacher Grade III (Level -I) in pursuance to the advertisement with all consequential benefits from the date person lower in merit to the petitioner were given appointment. D. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. E. Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is female candidate, who participated in the selection process for the post of Teacher Grade-III arising out of the advertisement in the year 2013. The petitioner having good academic record and having qualified RTET of 2012 and being candidate of area of TSP District Udaipur participated in the process. 3. Admittedly, the whole controversy is that the petitioner submitted the form under the category of OBC Women. The petitioner’s case is that they should have been considered in their respective category but since respective category was not available in this particular Zone of TSP area, therefore, the petitioner ought to have been considered as General Category candidate in the TSP area. 4. The petitioner’s case is that they should have been considered in their respective category but since respective category was not available in this particular Zone of TSP area, therefore, the petitioner ought to have been considered as General Category candidate in the TSP area. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that the petitioner is not seeking any reservation in any category and therefore, it is not a case of category change but merely the petitioner have to be considered in the TSP General which is the open category. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that being in the open category or General category did not amount to category correction as the advertisement for this particular Zone was for TSP area only. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has however, stated that the petitioner did not write TSP and therefore, they could not given preference as TSP General category candidate. 6. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court takes note of the fact that the broadly the area in question was TSP area and thus, the petitioner who was a women of OBC category and has filled OBC Women as her category is not seeking any improvement in her category or merit but simply she is seeking consideration in the General category open recruitment seats for Teacher Grade-III. However, without making any comment on merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner for being treated as a TSP General category women candidate in open category where the local residents have been given preference. The respondents shall pass a speaking order within a period of 30 days from submission of such representation and until the final orders are passed, the interim order granted by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 19.09.2017 shall remain in currency. 7. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of.” 6. Apropos the petitioner’s candidature was considered in TSP (General) category. However, the representation was rejected on the premise that since she is seeking benefit of General category and as per the eligibility condition contained in the advertisement, she ought to have scored minimum 50% of marks in her senior secondary. Concededly, the petitioner secured 46.31% marks and thus, was ineligible. Apropos the petitioner’s candidature was considered in TSP (General) category. However, the representation was rejected on the premise that since she is seeking benefit of General category and as per the eligibility condition contained in the advertisement, she ought to have scored minimum 50% of marks in her senior secondary. Concededly, the petitioner secured 46.31% marks and thus, was ineligible. Originally her candidature was considered in OBC category by giving her a relaxation of 5% belonging to the special category and therefore, she cannot be allowed to have double advantage of seeking relaxation while applying in OBC category and subsequently switching to general category. 7. The translated version of the concluding paragraph of the impugned order dated 14.012.2017 (Annex.10) reads as under :- "In compliance with the interim order dated 19-09-2017 and the order dated 04-12-2017 passed by the Hon'ble Court, the candidate/petitioner has been permitted to change her category from General Female to TSP General Female, and document verification has been carried out accordingly. Although the candidate holds a position in the merit list of the permitted category (TSP General Female), she has availed a 5% relaxation in educational qualifications. In such a situation, as per the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the directions issued by the State Government in compliance with it, the candidate's selection category, as per the rules, falls under the Other Backward Classes (OBC). Since the candidate's obtained marks are lower than the marks of the last female candidate in her original category (Other Backward Classes), she does not hold a place in the merit list. Therefore, in compliance with the interim order dated 19-09-2017 and the order dated 04-12-2017 passed by the Hon'ble Court, the above-mentioned representation is disposed of accordingly." 8. I am of the view that the respondents have rather taken a lopsided view of the entire matter in view of they themselves having once conceded that candidature was considered in General category pursuant to the order passed by this Court. In fact, the respondents are approbating and re-approbating as is borne out from the impugned order itself, wherein on the one hand, they have considered her candidature in the General category and on the other hand, they are applying the yardstick of her being from OBC. 9. In fact, the respondents are approbating and re-approbating as is borne out from the impugned order itself, wherein on the one hand, they have considered her candidature in the General category and on the other hand, they are applying the yardstick of her being from OBC. 9. Be that as it may, the condition of minimum of 50% as per the advertisement also cannot take precedence over the statutory rules prescribed by National Council for Teacher Education (‘NCTE’), which are applicable in the recruitment process carried out by the respondents. 10. The same very controversy was subject matter of adjudication in another writ petition bearing SBCWP No. 12672/2017, wherein it was held that even for General category the eligibility condition of 50% as advertised in the recruitment process at the relevant time was repugnant to the NCTE Rules ibid. For ready reference relevant of the judgment is extracted herein-below:- “17. Thus, the sub Rule 3 Rule 266 of the Rules of 1996 clearly specifies that for appointment of Primary and Upper Primary School Teacher which is by direct recruitment, clauses 1 to 5 will be as per the qualification as laid down by National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) under the provision of subsection (1) of Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Thus, the legislation of the State Government in its own wisdom while legislating Sub Rule 3 Rule 266 of the Rules of 1996 has made it very clear that the guidelines of the NCTE shall have binding force on all recruitment for the purpose of academic qualification in Primary and Upper Primary School Teacher (Level I to V). Now once the legislation is amply clear then the notification issued by the NCTE under Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 on 29.07.2011 becomes binding by virtue of such legislation. The notification which is already on record as Annexure-2, amply indicates that for minimum qualification, the candidates ought to have possessed senior secondary with at least 45% marks and 2 years Diploma in Elementary Education.” 11. In view of the aforesaid, it is, thus, borne out that the petitioner fulfills the condition of eligibility as per the NCTE Rules and the analogy enunciated in SBCWP No.12672/2013, ibid, is also applicable to her case. In view of the aforesaid, it is, thus, borne out that the petitioner fulfills the condition of eligibility as per the NCTE Rules and the analogy enunciated in SBCWP No.12672/2013, ibid, is also applicable to her case. I am, therefore, not inclined to accept the respondents’ stand that the petitioner having less than 50% marks in Higher Secondary examination was ineligible for consideration as a candidate in general category (TSP). 12. Accordingly, the petitioner is held fully eligible to apply in the General category in terms of the NCTE Rules, supra. Her candidature has to be thus considered according to her merit and the performance in the selection process. 13. In the premise, it is directed that the respondents shall consider the petitioner as a candidate in the TSP (General) category and take further steps depending upon her otherwise being found eligible and meritorious as per the result declared by the respondents. In case, she is entitled to be appointed as per her performance, appointment letter shall be issued within a period of 30 days from her approaching the respondents with the web-print of the instant order. 14. As regards the vacancy, vide an interim order dated 27.04.2018, the respondents were under mandate not to fill-up one post in the category in which petitioner had applied. 15. In the event of appointment letter being issued to the petitioner, she shall be entitled to all the notional benefits including seniority in her selection batch, but for the period she remained out of job, she shall not be entitled to any financial benefits on the principal of ‘No Work No Pay’. 16. The writ petition is allowed in above terms. 17. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.