JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application being Civil Misc. Application No.55/2013 for reconstitution of the file of S.B.Civil Writ petition No.7591/2012 (Anita Meena v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) . I have perused the search slip dated 02.04.2013 issued by Deputy Registrar (Judicial). 2. From perusal of the search slip, it reveals that SBCWP No.7591/2012 (Anita Meena v. State & Ors.) was sent to Cause List Section on 23.01.2013 but the same was neither listed nor received back in Writ Section. It is stated in the search slip that despite sincere efforts made by concerning clerk including whole staff of the Civil Section, the original file of the aforesaid petition is not traceable. 3. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice would be met, if a direction for reconstitution of the aforesaid file is issued. 4. Accordingly, the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) is directed to reconstitute the aforesaid file of SBCWP NO.7591/2012 (Anita Soni v. State & Ors.) . 5. The Civil Misc. Application No.55/2013 is allowed. With the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, the writ petition (SBCWP NO.7591/2012) has been heard finally and is being decided today. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the question involved in this writ petition regarding the fixing of minimum age for eligibility by the respondents in the Advertisement (Annexure-2) has already been decided by this Court at Jaipur Bench in SBCWP No.18879/2012 (Madan Lal Jatav v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) along with two other writ petitions decided on 21.02.2013, wherein this Court, after taking into consideration Rule 265 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, has held that the respondents erroneously provided the date for the minimum age to be the last date of submission of application forms while issuing advertisement. It goes against the Rules, thus cannot be allowed to sustain. 7. This Court, while passing the aforesaid order, has declared that the petitioners are held eligible for the post in reference regarding age. 8. Mr Mahendra Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondents admits that the controversy involved in this writ petition has been decided by the aforesaid order. 9. It goes against the Rules, thus cannot be allowed to sustain. 7. This Court, while passing the aforesaid order, has declared that the petitioners are held eligible for the post in reference regarding age. 8. Mr Mahendra Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondents admits that the controversy involved in this writ petition has been decided by the aforesaid order. 9. In view of the joint statement of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of in terms of the order dated 21.02.2013 passed in SBCWP No.18879/2012 (Madan Lal Jatav v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) .Petition Disposed of. *******