The classification made by the Government in providing age relaxation only to certain categories of candidates was not arbitrary or violative of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India, and the provision of Rule 10 determining the maximum age of a candidate on the first day of January next falling the last date fixed for the receipt of applications was valid.

1. - The petitioners, in these writ petitions, have challenged the validity of the amended proviso to Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (for short 'the Rules of 1965' hereinafter) vide notification dated 06.02.2013, whereby age relaxation, subject to maximum of five years has been extended to the candidates working under the Government, Chief Minister BPL, Jeevan Raksha Kosh, National Rural Health Mission, Medi Care Relief Society, AIDS Control Society, Institutes under Cooperative Department or Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar. The petitioners have also challenged the validity of provition of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1965, which provides determination of maximum age of a candidate on the first day of January next falling the last date fixed for the receipt of the applications, and claimed that the maximum age of a candidate should be determined, while taking into consideration the last date of submission of application.

2. The petitioners, who are working as Nursing Staff in the private hospitals run by private medical colleges, have claimed that they are also discharging similar kind of duties as discharged by the Nursing Staff, working under the Government, Chief Minister BPL, Jeevan Raksha Kosh, National Rural Health Mission, Medi Care Relief Society, AIDS Control Society, Institutes under Cooperative Department or Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar but the Government has discriminated with them by restricting the benefit of age relaxation, subject to maximum of five years to those persons only, who are working under the Government, Chief Minister BPL, Jeevan Raksha Kosh, National Rural Health Mission, Medi Care Relief Society, AIDS Control Society, Institutes under Cooperative Department or Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar, while excluding the petitioners. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that they are also discharging similar kind of duties as performed by the Nursing Staff working under the Government, Chief Minister BPL, Jeevan Raksha Kosh, National Rural Health Mission, Medi Care Relief Society, AIDS Control Society, Institutes under Cooperative Department or Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar and, therefore, they are also entitled for benefit of age relaxation on the similar lines. It is also contended that there is no justification to deny the benefit of age relaxation to the candidates having experience of working as Nursing Staff with the private hospitals.

3. The petitioners have also claimed that fixing of cut-off date prescribing maximum age for a candidate for direct recruitment to the service as first day of January next falling the last date fixed for the receipt of the applications is arbitrary and ultra-vires and has no nexus with the object to be achieved and, therefore, the same is liable to be struck down and the respondents be directed to consider the last date of receipt of application as cut-off date for determination of maximum age of a candidate.

4. Per contra, learned counsels for the respondents-State have argued that there is no illegality in making provisions for age relaxation subject to maximum of five years to the persons working under the Government, Chief Minister BPL, Jeevan Raksha Kosh, National Rural Health Mission, Medi Care Relief Society, AIDS Control Society, Institutes under Cooperative Department or Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar vis-a-vis the persons working as Nursing Staff in the private hospitals. It is also contended that the said classification is permissible under the law because the same has been done in view of the fact that the persons serving as Nursing Staff under the Government, National Rural Health Mission, Medicare Relief Society AIDS Control Society, Institutes under Cooperative Department or Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar have additional responsibility, sensitivity and liability, which the petitioners are lacking. The learned counsels for the respondents have placed reliance on the decision passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mool Chand