1 (1) S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3647/2007 SMT. TARA JOSHI & OTHERS. V. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS. (2) S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3174/2007 SMT. CHANAN KAUR & OTHERS V. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS. DATE OF ORDER :::: 04/03/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI Mr.G.R.Punia, for Petitioners. Mrs. R.R.Kanwar, Addl. G.A. These two writ petitions involve a common question of law, therefore, they were heard together and decided by a common Judgment. The petitioners have preferred these writ petitions to seek directions against the respondents to the effect that while filling up the posts of Health Worker (Female) ANM, priority should be given to them, otherwise, the Condition No.2 of the advertisement issued on 4.5.2007 for filling up aforesaid posts on regular basis be set aside. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed on the post of A.N.M. in the year, 2000 and since then, they are continuously working with the respondents, hence, in those circumstances, they are entitled for preference in regard to the regular selections, pursuant to the advertisement dated 4.5.2007. In that regard, they have relied on the judgment of this Court dated 6th October, 2003 passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition 1571/2003. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner cannot be given preference while making regular selection as there exists no rule to permit such benefit and otherwise, the judgment rendered in writ petition No.1571/2003 is not applicable to the present matter, inasmuch as, while adjudicating the case, involved in the aforesaid writ petition, the Hon'ble Court gave direction for preference as there was a condition in the appointment order itself, whereas, similar condition of grant of preference does not exist in the order of appointment of the petitioners. Therefore, judgment of this 3 Court cannot be applied in the present matter. It is otherwise submitted that regular selection is to be made in accordance with the rules, thus, the advertisement dated 4.5.2007 cannot be nullified by deleting Condition No.2 which provides nothing but selection to be made strictly as per the merit and suitability of the candidate. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Perusal of the appointment order dated 8.6.2000 does not show that the petitioners were given any assurance for grant of preference while making regular selections as otherwise, assured to different set of employees, whose matters were decided in writ petition No.1571/2003. Hence, the judgment rendered by this Court in the aforesaid case cannot be applied in the present matter as Conditions of appointment were different. Otherwise also, the Condition No.2 of the advertisement dated 4.5.2007 cannot be struck down as the regular selections have to be made as per merit position of the candidates and the merit position has to be determined in accordance with the Rules, therefore, a direction, sought by the petitioners to delete the said Condition is nothing but 4 to claim a benefit de hors the Rules. The Rules provide selection to be made by the Commission/Appointing Authority as the case may be, by determining the merit and thus, determination of merit is to be made by the Commission/Appointing Authority as the case may be. In this case, the Appointing Authority has already provided basis for determination of merit, which cannot be interfered being not unreasonable. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petitions, hence same are dismissed, with no order as to costs. ( M. N. BHANDARI ), J. scd