JUDGMENT 1. The instant review petition has been filed for quashing/recalling the order dated 10.9.1997 by which the special appeal filed by the petitioner-appellants stood dismissed. 2. The ground taken in the review petition is that on 10.9.1997 when the appeal came up for hearing, learned counsel for the appellants was busy in arguing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3415/1997, Mahendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & ors. and as such he could not put-in appearance before the Division Bench and the Division Bench dismissed the appeal on merit without hearing the counsel. 3. In this regard as the absence of the learned counsel did not prevail over in passing the impugned judgment and the case was decided on merit on that day. 4. In view of the fact that Mr. Chaudhary could not appear and make submissions in support of the appeal regarding validity of the cut off date i.e. 11.8.1989 for screening of the teacher for the purpose of regularisation has not been considered by the division bench at all. The order is recalled. 5. Mr. Chaudhary was allowed to argue the matter afresh and he raised the issue that fixing the cut off date as on 11.8.89 is arbitrary and has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved and thus liable to be struck down. 6. The issue has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme court time and again in a large number of cases and some of which are Jaila Singh & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., AIR 1975 SC 1436 ; D.S. Nakara & ors. v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130 ; Dr. (Mrs.) Sushma Sharma & ors. v. State of Rajasthan & ors. others, 1985 (Suppl.) SCC 45 ; U.P.M.T.S.N.A. Samiti, Varanasi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors., 1987 (2) SCC 453 ; Krishna Kumar v. Union of India & Anr., 1990(4) SCC 207 ; All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association v. Union of India and others, 1992 (Suppl.) 1 SCC 664 ; State of Rajasthan v. Rajasthan Pensioner Samaj, 1991 (Suppl.) 2 SCC 141 ; T.S. Thiruvengadam v. Secretary to the Government of India, 1993(2) SCC 174 ; Union of India v. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal, 1994(4) SCC 212 ; University Grants Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhary & ors., 1996(10) SCC 536 ; State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Amrit Lal Gandhi & ors., AIR 1997 SC 782 ; Rabindranath Mukhopadhyay v. Coal India Ltd. and another, 1997(4) SCC 252 ; State of Haryana v. Rai Chand Jain & ors., 1997(5) SCC 167 ; Union of India & ors. v. Lieut. (Mrs.) E. lacats, 1997(7) SCC 334 ; State of Rajasthan v. Hitendra Kumar Bhatt, 1997(6) SCC 574 ; Dr. Ami Lal Bhat v. State of Rajasthan & ors., 1997(6) SCC 614 ; M.C. Dhingra v. Union of India and others, 1996(7) SCC 564 ; Chairman, Railway Board & ors. v. C.R. Rangdhamaiah & Ors., 1997(6) SCC 623 ; J & K Public Service Commission etc. v. Dr. Narinder Mohan & ors., AIR 1994 SC 1808 ; Union of India & ors. v. M. Bhaskar & ors. 1996(4) SCC 416 ; V. Kasturi v. Managing Director, State Bank of India, Bombay & Anr., (1998) 8 SCC 30 ; Union of India & ors. v. M.V. Valliappan & ors., (1999) 6 SCC 259 ; Union of India v. R. Sarangapani, (2000) 4 SCC 355 ; K. Thimmapa & ors. v. Chairman, Central Board of Directors, State Bank of India & Anr., (2001) 2 SCC 259 ; and Sikkam Subha Associates v. State of Sikkam, (2001) 5 SCC 629 ) . 7. Thus, in view of the above, even by stretch of imagination, it cannot be held that the cut off date is arbitrary or so wide of the mark that it requires any interference by this Court. 8. As the case of the appellants is to be considered in the light of the aforesaid settled legal proposition and the fact remains that the State has to fix a date and whatever date is fixed by the State, it will definitely cause prejudice to some one and at least deprive some one from the benefit, the said date cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable on any ground. 9. Thus, in view of the above, we find no merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******