CWP 10345/08 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.10345/2008 Hanuman Sahai & (5) Ors Versus State & (2) Ors Date of Order ::: 26/11//08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. SC Gupta, for petitioners It is a second round of litigation of self same petitioners who earlier approached this Court by way of CWP-7104/08 which was dismissed vide detailed order dt.18/08/08. Instant petitioners being members of Class IV submitted their applications for the post of Hostel Superintendent in pursuance of advertisement dt.15/12/07 (Ann.1) issued by respondent-PSC. They raised grievance that quota reserved for ministerial staff U/r 6A of Rajasthan Social Welfare Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 (“Rules, 1963”) is ultra vires and violative of Arts. 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner earlier approached this Court making self same prayer that 12 & half posts reserved for ministerial staff should be made available for Class IV cadre since lowest post in ministerial staff is Lower Division Clerk who hold same pay scale as of Hostel Superintendent; as such members of ministerial staff are not inclined to seek appointment on the post of Hostel Superintendent under scheme of Rules, 1963. It was CWP 10345/08 //2// further submitted before this Court in earlier petition that members of Class IV cadre are not provided with adequate avenues of promotion, causing hardship to them. As referred to in earlier petition, all of their submission were noticed. However, it was observed that the Rules were not under challenge but that apart, as regards legality of Rules, impugned in instant petition, as well, was also examined in details and it was observed by this Court that members of Class IV cadre cannot in any manner equate with members of ministerial staff. It is always for Rule making authority to consider avenue of promotion to be provided to members of Class IV under respective service Rules. Counsel also submits that a Co-ordinate bench of this Court issued notices in an identical matter. It is made clear that after dismissal of earlier writ petition, petitioners have raised self same arguments in instant petition except assailing validity and legality of existing Rule; and that apart, suffice is to say that since the issue was already examined and once it has been dismissed by this Court on merits vide judgment dt.18/08/08; in these circumstances, instant petition is not maintainable. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.2/10345CW08-2611.doc