Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) THE matter comes up on an interim application with a prayer to dispose of the writ application in view of the opinion of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in SBCWP No. 9015/2009 (Dr. Abhishek Goyal & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Ors.) and other similar cases. The matter was taken up for final disposal, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, since the pleadings are complete and the controversy has already been set at rest in the case of Dr. Abhishek Goyal (supra).
(2.) THE petitioners, in the instant writ application, after having offered their candidatures for appointment to the posts of 'Ayurved Chikitsadhikari', in response to the advertisement dated 16th June, 2010, have approached this Court praying for the following relief(s): - - "i) It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble High Court may kindly call for the entire record and after examining the same be pleased to declare the impugned action of respondent No. 2 in not recommending the case of the petitioners for the purpose of appointment on the post of Ayurved Chikitsadhikari to Respondent No. 1 in the light of Note No. 1 appended to Advertisement dated 16.6.2010, Corrigendum dated 27.8.2010 and circular dated 22.6.2004 to that extent the action of the official respondent be declared null and void and be quashed and set aside. ii) by further appropriate order or direction the respondents be directed precisely Respondent No. 2 to recommend the name of the petitioners for the purpose of appointment on the post of Ayurved Chikitsadhikari in the light of Note No. 1 appended to the advertisement dated 16.6.2010, corrigendum dated 27.8.2010 and circular dated 22.6.2004 and thereupon the Respondent No. 1 be directed to issue order of appointment in favour of the petitioners on the post of Ayurved Chikitsadhikari as per their merit position in the reserve list dated 4.11.2011 (as pasted on the notice board of the RPSC) against the vacancies remained unfilled forthwith. iii) By further an appropriate order or direction the life of the reserve list dated 4.11.2011 (as pasted on the notice board of the RPSC) be kept alive during the pendency of the writ petition and in case if the writ petition is not decided within a period of six months from the date of issuance of reserve list dated 4.11.2011, the case of the petitioners be not jeopardized on account of life of the reserve list coming to an end. iv) By further appropriate order or direction the respondents be directed to issue appointment order on the post of Ayurved Chikitsadhikari in favour of the petitioners with all consequential benefits thereto including seniority and all consequential benefits as has been given to all their counter parts who have been given appointment on the post of Ayurved Chikitsadhikari during the pendency of the writ petition in pursuance to advertisement dated 16.06.2010. v) any other order or direction, which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners. vi) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioners." The controversy raised herein is no more res -integra in view of the opinion of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in SBCWP No. 6333/2008 (Amena Fatima & Ors. v. The State of Raj. & Ors.), decided on 6th March, 2009, as well as in the case of Dr. Abhishek Goyal and Ors. (supra), decided on 18th January, 2012.
(3.) LEARNED Senior Counsel, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, asserted that the amendment dated 10th October, 2002, cannot be held to have retrospective operation, as has been opined by this Court in the cases aforesaid.;