1. Since bunch of petitions involve common question, at joint request, they are being finally decided at admission stage.

2. Controversy arises for consideration in regard to interpretation of amendment notification dated 25/07/1995 whereby explanation has been added for the post of Laboratory Technician ("Lab. Tech.") in Column No.4 against entries at Sl.No.4 under the head "GROUP-A-VI {Para Medical Cadre (Medical)} of Schedule-I appended to the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 ("Rules, 1965").

3. It is manifest from the record that since Year 2002 onwards, 9-months' Lab. Tech. training was substituted by 2-years training and academic qualification was changed from "Secondary" to "Senior Secondary (Science)", and thereafter, all applicants holding minimum academic qualification of Senior Secondary (Science), are holders of 2-Yrs' Lab. Tech. training from the institutions recognised by the Government and despite correspondence being made way back on 10/01/2003, the State Government has not taken care to make necessary amendments in Scheme of Rules, 1965, so far.

4. While examining the controversy, necessary facts being relevant for the purpose are that 312 posts of Laboratory Technician were initially advertised vide notification dated 06/10/2009 but it appears from the reply filed by the respondents that selections were held against 346 posts. Pursuant to advertisement dated 06/10/2009, applications were submitted by all the petitioners holding certificates of 9-months/2-years' Lab. Tech. training from an institution recognised by Government and as per clause 2 of General Instructions appended to the Advertisement dated 06/10/2009, assessment of merit is based on academic record - 50% of academic record and 50% average marks secured in Lab. Tech. Training Course, which reads ad infra:

"2 & vH;FkhZ dk p;u 'kq) ;ksX;rk eSfjV ds vk/kkj ij fd;k tkosxk esfjV dk vk/kkj fu/kkZfjr 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk dh vad rkfydk ds izkIrkdksa ds 50 izfr'kr ,oa ySc VSDuhf'k;u izf'k{k.k dh vadrkfydk ds izkIrkadks ds 50 izfr'kr vadksa dks tksM+dj vkSlr fudkyk tk;sxkA"
But, before finalisation of the process of selection, and since the merit was to be adjudged only on the basis of average marks of academic qualification & marks obtained in training certificate course, interview was merely a formality for examining original academic certificates. At this stage, one of applicants (Kailash C.Sharma) having possessed 9-months Lab. Tech. training certificate from an institution recognised by Government filed CWP-14873/2010 with an apprehension that State Government might not implement and give effect to amendment notification dated 25/07/95, which clearly postulates that others having become eligible for the post of Lab. Tech. could be considered only in the event of non-availability of candidates holding certificate of 9-months' training from an institution recognised by Government, and if amendment (supra) is not being carried out in its true spirit, great prejudice would cause to such applicants holding certificate of 9-months' Lab. Tech training.

5. Taking note of bare perusal of amendment notification dated 25/07/1995, this Court while issuing notices to respondents, passed ex parte stay order on 03/11/2010:-

"In the meanwhile, respondents are directed to first consider candidatures of such candidates having possessed certificate of nine months laboratory technician Training certificate from an institution recognised by Government and only on account of non-availability of such persons (supra) other candidates be considered pursuant to advertisement dated 06/10/2009 for the post of Lab. Technician till further orders."
It appears from the record that pursuant to ex parte stay order (supra), State Government selected candidates giving preference to the holders of certificate of 9-months' Lab. Tech. Training from an institution recognised by the Government and select list was declared on 12/01/2011 - pursuant to which, candidates