[2025:RJ-JP:35234] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14562/2012 Sumer Singh S/o Mangal Chand aged 35 years R/o Village Barugarh Post Jakhora Tehsil Chirawa Distt. Jhunjhunu ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu through its Chief Executive Officer. 3. The Rehabilitation Council of India, B-22 Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi, through its Member Secretary. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Raj Tantia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Sharma for Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 03/09/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue with regard to eligibility of the candidates possessing Diploma Course in Special Education has already been decided by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the writ petitions S.B. Civil Writ Nos. 14478/2012 (Kalpana Tak Vs. State) decided on 05.11.2019, 14479/2012 (Arun Verma Vs. State) decided on 21.08.2014, 14480/2012 (Bhanwar Lal Yadav Vs. State) decided on 26.08.2014, 14481/2012 (Pritam Kumar Vs. State) decided on 26.08.2014, 7620/2014 (Mukesh Vs. State) decided on 08.09.2014 & 1145/2016 (DB) (Phool Chand Vs. State) decided on 23.05.2017. It has further been informed that although the respondent-State filed D.B. Special [2025:RJ-JP:35234] (2 of 3) [CW-14562/2012] Appeal Writ Nos. 853/2016 (State Vs. Aruna Verma (CW/14479/2012) decided on 23.05.2017, 1037/2016 (State Vs. Pritam Kumar (CW/14481/2012) decided on 23.05.2017 & 1091/2016 (State Vs. Mukesh (CW/7620/2014) against some of such judgments, however, said special appeals have also been dismissed vide order dated 23.05.2017. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only reason to deny benefit of appointment to the petitioner is in relation to question of eligibility attached to diploma in Special Education and now after the aforesaid judgments, the issue is no longer res integra. 3. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that vide order dated 20.09.2012, while issuing notices in the instant writ petition, interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner for keeping one post of Teacher Grade III (Special Education) Level-1 vacant. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the aforesaid stay order has not been vacated and the same is still continuing. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents is unable to dispute that the issue in hand has already been decided by the aforesaid judgments. 5. In the light of aforesaid statements as well as the judgments earlier passed by this Court, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. 6. The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Teacher Grade III (Special Education) Level-1 from the date on which the person less meritorious to the petitioner has [2025:RJ-JP:35234] (3 of 3) [CW-14562/2012] been given appointment on the aforesaid post with all consequential benefits. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled for actual monetary benefits, however, such benefits shall be granted to the petitioner notionally. The respondents are directed to make compliance of this order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the instant order. 7. Ordered accordingly. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU /179