JUDGMENT 1. - All the petitioners have prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus to the non-petitioners to appoint them on the post of Amin in pursuance of their selection by the Settlement Department. All the petitioners had appeared in the selection held in the year 1980. After they had successfully passed the test they were asked to undergo training. A large number of persons were given appointment on the posts of Amin. Petitioners were however not given much appointments and according to them this has been done notwithstanding availability of vacant posts. In response to a starred question of Dr. Ujla Arora, Member of Legislative Assembly, the Government stated on the floor of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly that it could not give appointments on account of disbanding of the two parties. Now instructions have been given to the Settlement Commissioner for giving appointment to the selected candidates. By letter dated 22.4.91, Exhibit-8, addressed to the Deputy Secretary, General Administration' Department, the Settlement Commissioner sought extension of the non-availability certificate issued on 5.7.90. The petitioners have stated that notwithstanding this letter of the Settlement Commissioner, they have so far not been given appointment. 2. Although several opportunities were given to the non-petitioners, reply to the writ petitions have not been filed. When these cases along with other cases were taken up yesterday, a direction was given to the learned Dy. Govt. Advocate to state reasons as to why the petitioners have not been given appointments. In pursuance of the direction given by the Court, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate has today placed before the Court a copy of an order passed on 24.6.92 by which sixty-two selected persons have been given appointment. In respect of the twenty-eight persons, including the petitioners, it has been stated that they could not be given appointment on account of the fact that they have become overage. In the order dated 24.6.92 it has been stated that recommendation has been made to the State Government for granting relaxation in their upper age limit and as soon as the relaxation is received, they will be appointed and their seniority will be determined in accordance to the merit assigned to them at the time of selection. 3. When the Court asked the learned, Dy. Govt. Advocate to state as to how these candidates are being treated as overage, the learned Dy. Govt. 3. When the Court asked the learned, Dy. Govt. Advocate to state as to how these candidates are being treated as overage, the learned Dy. Govt. Advocate stated that on the date of passing of the order dated 24.6.92 the petitioners have crossed the age. 4. It is not the case of the non-petitioners that any of the petitioners was overage at the time of submission of the application form. All the petitioners were having requisite qualifications and were within the age limit on the last date fixed in the advertisement, Annexure-1. It is also not their case that on the date of final selection any of the petitioners had crossed the age limit. It is borne out from the record that vacancies of the post of. Amin were available but on account of the lack of the sanction, the petitioners were not given appointment, even though a statement was made on the floor of the Legislative Assembly. Even after 22.4.91 a period of more than one year has elapsed and yet appointment orders have not been issued. 5. The eligibility of the candidates with reference to the requirement of qualification and with reference to the age is to be examined on the last date fixed for receipt of the application or on any other date which is specified in the Rules. Once a candidate is found eligible on the last date fixed for the receipt of the application form or the date specified in the Rules and he is selected, he cannot be denied appointment merely on the ground that in the intervening period between the date fixed for the receipt of the application, the date of selection or the actual date of issue of order of appointment the candidate has crossed the upper age limit. Qualifications, academic or otherwise are to determined with reference to a predictable date or point of time. It cannot be made dependent on uncertainities. A person who is eligible at the time of submission of application form does not have control either over the point of time of selection or the date of issue of appointment order. Process of selection ordinarily takes time after receipt of the applications. The competent selecting body is required to scrutinise the application. Then candidature of eligible person are to be considered. It takes some more time before final selection is made and appointment order is issued. Process of selection ordinarily takes time after receipt of the applications. The competent selecting body is required to scrutinise the application. Then candidature of eligible person are to be considered. It takes some more time before final selection is made and appointment order is issued. No rule has been cited at the bar requiring a second examination of the question of eligibility of the candidates after final selection. Therefore, even if a candidate becomes overage at the time of issue of order of appointment, he cannot be denied appointment. Even in respect of academic qualification if a candidate becomes ineligible after his selection, he cannot be denied appointment. In Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao ( 1983 (3) S.C.C. 284 ) it has been held that rules which are in force at a particular point of time must be applied for vacancies becoming available at the relevant time. The amended rules cannot be applied in respect of such vacancies. In P. Mahendran v. State of Karnatak ( 1990 (1) S.C.C. 411 ) their lordships of the Supreme Court have declared that even if rules are amended after the process of selection has started, those who were eligible prior to the amendment cannot be treated to be ineligible. 6. In Prakash Chand v. State of Rajasthan (1990 (2) RLR 1) this Court has clearly held that the question of age. limit has to be decided with reference to the date of determination of vacancies. This Court has taken note of the provisions contained in Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1962 and the Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules, 1955 which contain a provision that a candidate will be treated within age limit even if vacancies are not determined/not available in a particular year, if he was eligible in a particular year but has crossed the upper age limit when process of recruitment is actually started. 7. If that be the position, persons who are eligible on the date of selection cannot be denied appointment on the ground that by lapse of time they have crossed the upper age limit. 8. In these cases,as I have observed above, the respondents have not shown that any of the petitioners had crossed the upper age limit on the last date fixed for the receipt of applications or even on the date of selection. 8. In these cases,as I have observed above, the respondents have not shown that any of the petitioners had crossed the upper age limit on the last date fixed for the receipt of applications or even on the date of selection. The only ground on which appointments have been denied to the petitioners is that they have crossed the upper age limit at the time of actual issue of appointment order. This specious plea raised on behalf of the respondents is legally not sustainable. Mere omission or delay in issue of order of appointment cannot validly constitute a foundation for the decision of the respondents for treating the petitioners as ineligible particularly when persons who are lower in merit list have been appointed. The petitioners have a legal right to be appointed because persons lower in merit have been given appointment. The candidate at serial No. 90 have been given appointment and all the petitioners are above him in the merit list. By being denied appointment the petitioners have been subjected to discrimination and their fundamental right of equality in relation to employment has been infringed. 9. The writ petitions are therefore allowed. The non-petitioners are directed to appoint the petitioners within a period of 15 days of the receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioners' seniority will be determined according to the merit assigned to them at the time of their selection. It will be at the fitness of things to order that the candidates who have not approached this Court but who are similarly situated, their candidature may also be considered according to their position 'in the merit list. This will avoid unnecessary litigation in the Court in future.Parties are left to bear their own costs.Writ Petitions Allowed - Respondents directed to appoint petitioners. *******