- (1.) WE have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
(2.) IT is submitted that the petitioners were eligible on 05.09.1996 for selections to the post of Homoeopathic Doctor, by direct recruitment. The petitioners were having a Diploma, prior to the Homoeopathic (Diploma Course) Rules, 1983 came into force, which was neither provided in the advertisement, or in the relevant Rules. The petitioners were entitled to practice in Homoeopathy, in view of the inclusion of the Course, in Schedule II of the Central Homoeopathic Council Regulations, 1973.
(3.) WE find substance in the preliminary objection raised by learned Advocate General and the counsel appearing for the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, that the petitioner was 35 years of age, on the date of advertisement issued in the year 1996, and that, at this stage, even if the contention is found to be correct, appointment cannot be given after 19 years, when the petitioner had attained the age of 54 years. Leaving the question of law open, we find that the reliefs claimed in the writ petition may not be granted at this stage, and thus, the Writ Petition has become infructuous, with the passage of time, and is liable to be dismissed.;