- (1.) Heard on the applications for condonation of delay. For the reasons stated in the applications, we deem it proper to condone the delay. The delay is accordingly condoned and the applications are allowed.
(2.) Also heard on admission. These intra -court appeals are directed against the common order dated 20.3.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court, whereby she has allowed respondents' S.B.Civil Writ Petitions No.9589/2013 and 11129/2013.
(3.) It is sad that despite order dated 30.1.2008 passed in Civil Appeal No.1398/2006 by the Supreme Court against the appellants to grant relaxation in upper age limit to the respondents for appointment on the post of Laboratory Technicians whenever the posts were advertised in future, they declined to do so when 543 posts of Lab. Assistants were later advertised. The respondents, therefore, filed S.B.Civil Writ Petitions No.9589/2013 and 11129/2013, which the learned Single Judge has allowed by the impugned order directing the appellants to relax the upper age limit of the respondents in terms of the order dated 30.1.2008 of the Supreme Court. Order dated 30.1.2008 of the Supreme Court reads as under: - "The applications for intervention in Civil Appeal No.1426 of 2006 are allowed and the applicants are permitted to be impleaded as appellants. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The question which fell for decision of the High Court was whether the appellants of these appeals were eligible for consideration for the post of Laboratory Technicians in terms of Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') read with Schedule apprehended thereto, according to which hundred percent of the posts of Laboratory Technicians have got to be filled up by direct recruitment and the eligibility for consideration for the said post is that a person must pass out secondary school examination and undergo nine months training from an institute recognized by the Government. In the present case, undisputedly, all the appellants have passed out secondary school examination and they have undergone nine months training not only from the institutes recognized by the Government but from the Government hospitals itself. This being the position, we have no difficulty in holding that the appellants were eligible for the posts of Laboratory Technicians and the High Court was not justified in holding otherwise. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed, impugned orders are set aside and it is held that the appellants are eligible for consideration for the post of Laboratory Technicians. Undisputedly, prior to the filing of the writ petitions, no advertisement was issued for filling up the posts of Laboratory Technicians. This being the position, it is directed that the appellants shall be considered for appointment on the posts of Laboratory Technicians, whenever the same are advertised and if it is so advertised, they can apply for the same. If they are otherwise found suitable, appointment shall not be refused merely because they have crossed the upper age limit in which eventuality age bar in relation to these appellants shall be relaxed." Admittedly, the appellants for the first time advertised 543 posts of Lab. Assistants after passing of the above quoted order dated 30.1.2008 and for these posts, the upper age limit prescribed is 35 years. The respondents have crossed the age of 35 years and therefore, the appellants did not allow them to submit on -line application forms. It is in this background the respondents again had to rush this Court by filing S.B.Civil Writ Petitions No.9589/2013 and 11129/2013. And by an interim order dated 8.8.2013, the appellants were directed to accept off -line application forms to consider the candidature of respondents on the posts of Lab. Assistants. The learned Single Judge ultimately by the impugned order has allowed the writ petitions of the respondents in the light of order dated 30th January 2008 of the Supreme Court. The learned Single Judge has mainly directed the appellants not to refuse the candidature of respondents merely because they have crossed the upper age limit and the age bar be relaxed. And this direction is strictly in consonance with the earlier direction of the Supreme Court passed in favour of respondents. We, therefore, find no merit in the appeals. They are accordingly dismissed.;