1. These writ petitions are a sequel to writ petitions, WP (S) No. 5170 of 2002 and WP(C) No. 6135 of 2002 filed before this Court. The judgment in those writ petitions is Annexure A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in writ petition WP (C) No. 2566 of 2003 (since reported in 2003 (1) JLJR 322. The State of Jharkhand had introduced the Jharkhand Primary Schools Appointment Rules, 2002 to regulate the appointment procedure of teachers in primary schools. Rule 4 of the said Rules provided a lower and upper age limit for appearing in the examination to be held as part of the selection process of teachers. But a concession was given by the said Rule to the effect that there will be no such limitation on the upper age for the first examination to be held. This was on the basis that for a number of years, no examination had been held or selection made and all those who had acquired Teachers Training should have an opportunity to appear in the first examination. It was intended to be a one-time concession. It meant that even a person who would attain the age of superannuation within six months of being selected or appointed, could appear in the examination. Rule 8 thereof provided that the knowledge level for the written examination for selection would be the Middle Level Examination. The non-fixation of an upper age limit for candidates and fixing the knowledge at Middle level academic standard, were challenged before this Court in those writ petitions. This Court struck down the unbridled concession given regarding the upper age limit and the fixation of Middle Level as the standard for the written test to be conducted. The Division Bench declared void the non-prescription of a bar in respect of the upper age limit and the fixation of Middle level examination knowledge as the standard for the written test to be conducted on the ground that the non-prescription of an upper age limit and the fixation of Middle level examination knowledge for the candidates, are arbitrary, suffer from non-application of mind and not based on any intelligible differentia and had no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The Division Bench thus found both those provisions violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, though the said Article was not specifically mentioned. The Court also declared that the said two stipulations were against public interest. The said decision of the Division Bench became final.

2. The Legislature thereupon amended Rule 4(d) and Rule 8(d). The amended Rules provided a lower and an upper age limit and for the first examination provided for relaxation of age by five years. By Rule 8(d), it enhanced the standard of examination to Primary Teachers Training Examination. Except in WP (C) No. 2566 of 2003, wherein various questions are sought to be raised, in the other writ petitions, the essential prayer is for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State to relax the upper age limit indefinitely or, not to restrict the one-time relaxation to five years as has now been done by the amendment. It appears to us that the prayer for the issue of a writ of mandamus

directing the one time relaxation indefinitely is clearly barred by the decision of the Division Bench in the earlier writ petitions. Rule 4(d) as amended has been introduced to meet the objections upheld by the Division Bench in the earlier writ petitions. It is not shown how the limit of one-time age relaxation to five years is in any manner illegal or unconstitutional. A reasonable explanation has been given by the State that there were no appointments for five years. Therefore, it is clear that the prayer in the writ petitions for permitting those who are beyond the age limit prescribed by Rule 4(d) to take the examination is clearly ineligible and cannot be granted. The writ petitions raising only that contention and containing only that prayer have only to be dismissed. Similarly, the prayer to ignore Rule 8(d) of the Rules