1 1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.379/2010. Likhamaram. vs. State of Raj. and ors. 2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.470/2010. Radheshyam & Ors. vs. State of Raj. and ors. Date : 23.4.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Ramdev Potalia, for the petitioners. Mr.Hemant Choudhary, for the respondents. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the parties. The contention of the petitioners in these two writ petitions is that they are eligible for appointment on the post of Upper Primary Teacher and they applied for the said post in the year 2006. According to the petitioners, after giving appointment to the other candidates, yet large number of posts are lying vacant. It is also submitted that this Court (Jaipur Bench) in SBCWP No.4728/2008 (Naveen Kr.Sharma & (16) Ors. vs. State & Ors.) and other connected writ petitions vide order dated 1.12.2009, after taking note of cut off marks and the date of birth of candidates to whom lastly appointments were given and after noticing the fact that RPSC did not disclose whether the vacancies are available or not, disposed of the writ petitions with a direction to 2 the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners for appointment on the post of Teacher (Primary & Upper Primary Schools) on the basis of their selection made pursuant to advertisement dt.30/10/06 strictly in order of merit. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the RPSC has not disclosed that there is left out vacancy or not. It is also submitted that the last appointment given in the category of OBC was given only to the persons who were born on 2.7.1983. The petitioners are born subsequent to 2.7.1983, therefore, they cannot get appointment. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case as well as the reasons given in the judgment of Naveen Kr. Sharma (supra). The petitioners also pointed out that on 19.2.2010, pursuant to the order dated 1.12.2009, some more appointments were given. Be that as it may, the petitioners' contention is that large number of vacancies are yet there and the petitioners' number in merit was lower and, therefore, in view of the judgment delivered in the case of Naveen Kr. Sharma (supra), same directions are issued to the respondents. Consequently, both these writ petitions are 3 disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners in the light of the directions given in the case of Naveen Kr. Sharma (supra) in accordance with law strictly and if the petitioners are found to be eligible for appointment, then they be given appointment. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya