1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER Girdhari Lal and others V.State and others (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8929/2008) Satyendra Kumar & others V.State and others (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7442/2008) Anil Kumar Sharma & others V.State and others (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6813/2008) Date of order ::: February 06,2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr.N.K.Mishra, for the petitioners Mr.G.S.Bafna, Advocate General with Mr.Venkyatesh Garg,for the State REPORTABLE BY THE COURT (1) Heard learned counsel for the parties. (2) In all these three writ petitions, the main grievance of the petitioners is that the Supreme Court delivered the judgment dated 30.1.2008 in the matter of age relaxation for the post of Laboratory Technician in terms of Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (in short `the Rules of 1965') and the same has been made applicable for the present advertisement so far as age is concerned only in case of persons who have approached the Supreme Court and not other similarly situated persons. (3) The Supreme Court in Jitendra Kumar Kumhar and anr. V. State of Rajasthan and others (Civil Appeal No.1398/2006 and other connected appeals decided on 30.1.2008) has given direction that in case the petitioners before it are otherwise found eligible, appointment shall not be refused merely because they have crossed the upper age limit in which eventuality, the age bar in relation to those appellants 2 shall be relaxed. While passing the aforesaid direction on 30.1.2008 the Supreme Court has taken note of the fact that no advertisement was issued prior to the filing of the writ petition for filling up the posts of Laboratory Technician. (3) In the present case, the Rajasthan Rural Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 2008(in short `the Rules of 2008') have been promulgated at once i.e. 18.2.2008 and it appears to be the first advertisement and it further appears that earlier also, the recruitment has not been made under the Rules of 1965, therefore, the said judgment dated 30.1.2008 has been made applicable. Since the aforesaid judgment dated 30.1.2008 has been made applicable in respect of the persons who have approached the Court and were similarly situated to the petitioner, being the applicants of 1996 probably for the reason that the cadre of Laboratory Technician has been bifurcated for Rural and Urban areas , therefore, the petitioners have raised grievance that the relief granted by the Supreme Court on 30.1.2008 be extended to the other persons who have applied in pursuance to the earlier advertisement dated 24.6.1996. No appointments were made on the post of Laboratory Technician in pursuance to the advertisement dated 7.7.2008 till today. (5) Learned Advocate General submits that so far as the issue of age relaxation in the matter of similarly situated persons is concerned, the same will be made applicable to other persons who had applied in pursuance to the advertisement of 1996 and have not approached the Supreme Court as the policy of the Government is to curb litigation and not to compel other similarly situated persons to approach the Court, although they may stand higher in merit,. in case the judgment was judgment in rem or the same attained finality or the Government has 3 decided to implement the same. The learned Advocate General further submits that the State should be kept free to examine other eligibility of the candidates while publishing the revised final select list. (6) I have gone through record of the case and further tested the aforesaid statement of the learned Advocate General on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (7) In my view the stand taken by the learned Advocate General is in consonance with the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the similarly situated persons who may stand higher in merit may not be deprived of consideration of their cases simply on account of not approaching the Court on earlier occasion when the judgment has been delivered in favour of the similarly situated persons. The same stand is fair also. (8) Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for the post of Laboratory Technician, if not considered till now on account of age bar. In case after examining their eligibility, the petitioners are otherwise found suitable, then appointment shall not be refused merely because they have crossed the upper age limit. (9) The writ petitions are disposed of. (PREM SHANKER ASOPA) J. Gopal