JUDGMENT 1. :- The ties of a common cause has prompted all the petitioners herein to file this writ petition which has been heard along with other similar writ petitions and, hence is being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners after going through a regular selection procedure were appointed as ad hoc temporary Doctors and were working in various medical colleges and Associated Group of Hospitals in the State of Rajasthan for the last more that three years. They are all duly qualified possessing post graduate degree in their respective subjects. 3. An advertisement dated 10th December, 1993 was thereafter issued by the State of Rajasthan for filling up the posts of Assistant Professors in various subjects on regular basis without giving any preference or weightage to the existing ad hoc Doctors like the petitioners. The petitioners, therefore, who were working from before as ad hoc Assistant Professors filed these writ petitions challenging the advertisement by which the posts were sought to be filled up by direct recruitment and they sought a further direction to regularise their services making assessment of their performance, service record etc. They were aggrieved with the fact that as they were working from before, they should be given the benefit of their previous service while making appointments. Similar writ petitions were also filed by two other petitioners Dr. Rajendra Kumar Surekha and Dr. Sudhir Bhandaril, bearing SBCWP No.5424/1990 and 5424/1990 (sic) . The said petitioners had also challenged the filing up of posts of Assitant Professor (General Medicine) essentially on the ground that in-service candidates should not be directed to go through a process of fresh recruitment and their services should be regularised. The aforesaid two writ petitions, by order dated 11/4/1994, were dismissed in so far as their claim for regularisation of their service by virtue of their performance as Assistant Professors in the past in concerned. A concession, however, was made in their favour and a direction was given to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission that the candidates who have rendered service from before shall not be terminated and it was directed to interview the petitioners and other ad hoc appointees who have completed three years or more service without requiring them to appear in the screening test; instead they were allowed to face the interview for selection straightaway. Accordingly, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission was directed not to subject the candidates, meaning thereby the ad hoc appointees, to the process of screening, but they were directed to be interviewed without facing such screening test. 4. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court bearing D.B. Special Appeal No.533/1004 and 492/1994 whereby the learned Judges of the Division Bench confined the con- cession made by the learned Single Judge in regard to ad hoc appointees only in favour of the petitioners, Dr. Surekha and Dr. Bhandari. A further appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India was then filed before the Supreme Court, where the Rajasthan Public Service Commission submitted that the con- cession of not going through the screening test could not have been made only in favour of Dr. Surekha and Dr. Bhandari and in the process also challenged that the concession made by the learned Single Judge regarding exemption of screening to all the ad hoc appointees was bad as per their grounds No. 3,4,5 and 6 of the Special Leave Petition wherein the Rajasthan Public Service Commission categorically urged that the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench erred in holding that the Commission is not within its right to hold the screening test under Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Medical Services Collegiate Branch Rules, 1962 and, therefore, contented that the learned Single Judge as well as the Hon'ble Judges of the Division Bench were not right in exempting the ad hoc appointees from the screening test and, further that it could not have been confined only in regard to the two candidates. 5. The Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court after hearing the parties disposed appeal by order dated 5th June, 1995 holding therein-that besided Dr. Bhandari and Dr. Surekha all other ad hoc appointees who have rendered service for three years or more shall also not be required to go through the screening test. 6. This writ petition had been deferred on the earlier occasion on account of the fact that similar question was pending before the Division Bench i.e. in the matter of Dr.Surekha and Dr. Bhandari which ultimately has now reached finality by the order of the Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 12740, 12741 of 1995 as noted hereinabove. 6. This writ petition had been deferred on the earlier occasion on account of the fact that similar question was pending before the Division Bench i.e. in the matter of Dr.Surekha and Dr. Bhandari which ultimately has now reached finality by the order of the Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 12740, 12741 of 1995 as noted hereinabove. After the aforesaid decision, the matter was listed again for hearing and learned counsel for the petitioners states that henceforth the matter stands concluded in view of the order of the Apex Court. 7. Learned Counsel for RPSC, however, submits that the order of the Supreme Court cannot be applied to all the ad hoc appointees and, it should be confined only to the Asstt. Professors in General Medicine and, not in regard to other ad hoc appointees in other specialities. 8. Having considered the submissions and after going through the judgments of the Division Bench and final order of the Supreme Court dated June 5, 1995, 1 find no subsatance in the argument of Shri Parihar as all the learned Judges have concurrently exempted the ad hoc appointees from going through the screening test and have directed the RPSC to interview the ad hoc appointees without directing them to go through the screening test. Besides this, in my view, no distinction can be made on the ground that the order applies only to the Assistant Professor in General Medicine for the reason that the benefit could not be extended only to one discipline to the exclusion of the candidates of other disciplines when they are similarly situated; the only difference being regarding the subject. Thus, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Dr. Rajendra Kumar Surekha & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 12740 - 12741/95 D/d. 5.6.1995, in which upheld judgment of the Single Bench as well as the Division Bench of this Court (supra), I have no hesitation in holding that the petitioners herein are entitled for exemption from going through the screening test for the post of Asstt. Professors. It is, however, made clear that the benefit of this exemption shall be extended to only those ad hoc applicants who have put in three or more years of service as Asstt. Professor. 9. Professors. It is, however, made clear that the benefit of this exemption shall be extended to only those ad hoc applicants who have put in three or more years of service as Asstt. Professor. 9. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed and the Rajasthan Public Service Commission is directed to interview the petitioners herein also for the advertised posts without requiring them to go through the screening test. 10. There shall be no order as to costs.Petitions allowed. *******