1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri Saurabh Lavania, learned counsel representing respondent no.3.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following main relief:-

(a) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to permit the petitioner to appear/apply in the impugned advertisement against the post of Senior Treatment Supervisor on contractual basis by relaxing the age limit.

3. The case set forth by the petitioner is that on 01.12.2016 the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Bahraich, had published an advertisement to fill in 9 vacancies of Senior Treatment Supervisor on contractual basis and the maximum age limit was specified as 65 years. The petitioner had applied in pursuance to the said advertisement but no selection was conducted. It is the case of the petitioner that previously also vide advertisement dated 03.01.2016, the Chief Medical Officer, Barabanki, had issued an advertisement to fill in vacant posts fixing maximum age as 65 years for the post of Senior Treatment Supervisor but the examination to be conducted in pursuance thereof was not conducted. The petitioner had applied in pursuance to the said advertisement also.

4. Now the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned advertisement dated June 2018, copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition, by which the vacancies for the post of Senior Treatment Supervisor have once again been advertised but now the upper age limit has been specified as 40 years.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that earlier when the maximum age was 65 years, the petitioner was perfectly eligible to apply for the same but now by means of the impugned advertisement the age limit has been reduced to 40 years and as such the petitioner is not able to apply for the same as he is aged about 46 years. He further contends that as the said advertisement includes the vacancies of 2016 and 2017 consequently the age limit should be fixed by the respondents as 65 years which would make the petitioner eligible to apply for the same. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another reported in (2008) 3 SCC 512 and Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi reported in (2008) 7 SCC 11, to contend that once the recruitment process has started then the rules of the game meaning thereby, the rules of the selection cannot be changed. While placing reliance on the aforesaid judgments, it is thus the specific case of the petitioner that the respondents are not empowered to change the age for the post of Senior Treatment Supervisor from 65 years to 40 years and hence the present petition.

6. Per contra, Sri Saurabh Lavania, learned counsel representing respondent no.3, contends that the post of Senior Treatment Supervisor is to be filled in on contractual basis and it is within the realm/prerogative of the employer to fix any age and there may not be any interference by the Courts of law. In this regard, Sri Lavania has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India v. Pushpa Rani and others reported in (2008) 2 SCC (L & S) 851 and Subha B. Nair and others v. State of Kerala and others reported in (2008) 2 SCC (L & S) 409. In this regard, it would be apt to reproduce paragraph 37 of the judgment of Pushpa Rani (supra) as under:-

"Before parting with this aspect of the case, we consider it necessary to reiterate the settled legal position that matters relating to creation and abolition of posts, formation and structuring/restructuring of cadres, prescribing the source/mode of recruitment and qualifications, criteria of selection, evaluation of service records of the employees fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. What steps should be taken for