ORDER BY THE COURT:- 1. All these writ petitions seek to challenge Conditions No.15 and 21 of the Advertisement No.1/2012 dated 30/4/2012. While in some of the writ petitions, challenge is made to Condition No.15 thereof, whereby consideration for appointment was restricted to only such candidates, who acquired eligibility prior to 15/9/2008, with the prayer that as per stipulation of Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Rural Ayurvedic, Unani, Homoeopathy and Naturopathy Service Rules, 2008 (for short, the "Rules of 2008"), 1/1/2013 should be fixed as the cut-off date for determination of eligibility. In some of the writ petitions, however, prayer has been made for quashing Condition No.21 of Advertisement No.1/2012 dated 30/4/2012 whereunder the criteria for selection has been given in which 40 marks have been allotted for educational qualification, 30 for experience and 30 for interview. Such challenge is made on the ground of lack of clearly defined criteria and transparency. However, there is one set of writ petitions, which pray that the process of selection should be confined to only those candidates, who acquired educational qualification prior to 15/9/2008. 2. This litigation is an off-shoot of the judgment of the Single Judge of this Court in Anoop Indoria Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5259/2009 and 24 connected writ petitions rendered on 29/4/2011, which was upheld by the division bench in Mahendra Upadhyaya & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1018/2011, dismissing the Special Appeal vide judgment dated 31/10/2011 and also by the Supreme Court while dismissing SLP filed there against vide judgment dated 26/3/2012. Under challenge in all those writ petitions was the process of recruitment undertaken by the respondents by recourse to Part-IV of the Rules of 2008 containing the procedure for initial recruitment of service. Respondents originally issued advertisement No.1/2008 on 21/7/2008 in accordance with provisions contained in Rules 25 and 26 of Part-IV of the Rules of 2008 for appointment on 320 posts of Rural Ayurved Chikitsak. Challenge to the said process of selection was made on the ground that criteria for determination of merit was not disclosed inasmuch as, the respondents have only on the basis of interview selected mostly those candidates, who were already working with them on contract basis. The single bench upholding those arguments, allowed the writ petitions with the following directions :- "1. The single bench upholding those arguments, allowed the writ petitions with the following directions :- "1. For the detailed reasons given in the judgment, selections and appointments made by the respondents on the post of Rural Ayurvedic Chikitsak are held to be illegal. Accordingly, respondents may hold fresh selection to the aforesaid posts after determining the criteria for selection. Selections may then be held on that criteria and each candidate may be awarded marks so as to determine comparative merit. The candidates, who had earlier appeared in the selection, may be issued call letters without requiring them to submit forms and be treated as eligible taking note of the earlier date of selection. 2. After undertaking the process of selection as indicated aforesaid and as otherwise provided under the Rules of 2008, respondents may notify the select list and give appointment on the post of Rural Ayurvedic Chikitsak. 3. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and to avoid sufferance of the public at large in rural areas in absence of Ayurvedic Chikitsak, it is directed that till process of selection as per the Rules of 2008, based on proper criteria for selection and determination of merit is undertaken, selected and appointed candidates apart from other candidates may not be disturbed. However, if any candidate, already appointed, is not selected in the fresh selection then he may vacate the regular post for newly selected meritorious candidate. 4. The endeavour of the respondents should be to have transparent, fair and proper selections with intention to select best and meritorious candidates." 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in some of the writ petitions argued that originally when Advertisement No.1/2008 was issued on 21/7/2008, 320 posts of Rural Ayurved Chikitsak were notified with the condition that age of eligibility would be determined with reference to cut-off date viz. 1/1/2009, although further stipulation was made that number of posts may be decreased or increased. Advertisement No.1/2012 dated 30/4/2012 has been issued in continuation of the earlier advertisement No.1/2008 dated 21/7/2008. The respondents have therein increased 58 posts and selection is now being made for 378 posts. 1/1/2009, although further stipulation was made that number of posts may be decreased or increased. Advertisement No.1/2012 dated 30/4/2012 has been issued in continuation of the earlier advertisement No.1/2008 dated 21/7/2008. The respondents have therein increased 58 posts and selection is now being made for 378 posts. The Single Judge of this Court in Anoop Indoria supra by a common judgment dated 29/4/2011 cancelled the earlier recruitment being satisfied that the selection was conducted in a most unfair manner and directed selection against those very vacancies to be held afresh after laying down fresh criterion. Eligibility of candidates as per their qualification will have to be therefore determined with reference to the cut-off date of 1/1/2009, given in the earlier advertisement. It is argued that as per settled proposition of service jurisprudence, eligibility requirement of the candidate seeking a public employment must be fulfilled on the cut-off date appointed in the relevant service rules. Even if there is no cut-off date appointed by the rules, then such date shall be as appointed for the purpose in the advertisement inviting applications. And if there is no such date appointed, then the eligibility criteria shall be applied with reference to the last date by which the applications were to be received. 4. Learned counsel argued that this was a case of initial recruitment under Chapter-IV of the Rules of 2008 and only those, who have acquired qualification according to cut off given in the advertisement dated 21/7/2008, should be treated as eligible. In other words, learned counsel argued that such of the candidates, who acquired eligibility qualification subsequent to the date of receipt of application or the date with reference to which the eligibility as per earlier advertisement dated 21/7/2008 was to be examined, are liable to be treated ineligible. It is further argued that any other interpretation would result in anomolous situation in that, if as per Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008, date of eligibility on the basis of advertisement dated 30/4/2012 is taken to be 1/1/2013, as is being argued on behalf of some of the writ petitioners, it would render many candidates, who participated in the earlier process of selection, ineligible as they would have on that date crossed the over age. This would amount to change of criteria in the midst of process of selection and would be contrary to the settled propostion of law laid down. 5. Learned counsel relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.Prasad and others Vs. Union of India and others : (1988) Suppl. SCC 269, a case relating to selection for initial recruitment, argued that only those, who are eligible at the time of initial recruitmement of service, should be considered for appointment and the eligibility criteria should be considered at the initial stage. Learned counsel argued that this Court in Bansi Lal Jakhar Vs. State of Rajasthan : (2007) 2 RLW (Raj.) 1067 held that eligibility of a candidate must be adjudged with reference to the year to which the vacancy relate. Therefore, such of the candidates, who acquired eligibility subsequent to the year of eligibility, cannot be treated eligible. The process undertaken for initial constitution of service under Chapter-IV of the Rules of 2008 was embroiled in litigation and in the meantime, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission has held fresh process of selection by way of direct recruitment in accordance with the procedure contained in Part-V of the Rules of 2008. Candidates, who acquired eligibility subsequent to Advertisement No.3/2011-12 dated 17/5/2011, have already been given appointments in terms of the judgment of this Court dated 18/12/2012 passed in Ram Raj Singh Gurjar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14145/2012 on the condition that they would be liable to be treated junior to those selected in the initial recruitment, which is in question in the instant case. Those, who acquired eligibility later, having availed the opportunity to participate in that process of selection, cannot be allowed to say that they have been deprived of the right to compete for recruitment. Learned counsel for the petitioners have in support of their arguments placed reliance upon judgments of the Supreme Court in Jasbir Rani & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2002) 1 SCC 124 , Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Chander Shekhar : (1997) 4 SCC 18 , Shankar K.Mandal Vs. State of Bihar : (2003) 3 SCC 519, Bhupinderpal Singh Vs. State : (2000) 5 SCC 262 , P.Mohanan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala : (2007) 9 SCC 497 and Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Haryana : (1985) 4 SCC 417 . 6. Chander Shekhar : (1997) 4 SCC 18 , Shankar K.Mandal Vs. State of Bihar : (2003) 3 SCC 519, Bhupinderpal Singh Vs. State : (2000) 5 SCC 262 , P.Mohanan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala : (2007) 9 SCC 497 and Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Haryana : (1985) 4 SCC 417 . 6. Further argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that the single bench as well as division bench of this court in appeal directed the respondents to make endeavour to hold process of selection again in a transparent, fair and proper manner with intention to select best and meritorious candidates. It was therefore bounden duty of the respondents to initiate the fresh process of selection only after determination of transparent criteria keeping in mind the observation of this court. In the advertisement however an attempt has been made to give preference to existing contractual appointees by awarding them enormously high marks for experience. No criteria has been defined or laid down by even any executive instructions to indicate as to on what basis marks should be awarded for interview and experience. Basis on which the 30 marks are allocated for interview has not been notified. No amendment has been made in the Rules of 2008 justifying criteria for allocation of 40 marks for educational qualification, 30 marks for experience and 30 marks for interview. Although, the respondents have earmarked 40 marks for educational qualification of B.A.M.S. Degree, that being the basic eligibility criteria, it has not been made clear whether any weightage would be given to the qualification of Secondary, Senior Secondary, post graduation degree of M.D. or Ph.D. Thus, even the candidates with much higher qualification are being treated at par with those with lesser qualification. Approach of the respondents is wholly arbitrary and illegal. This court in Anoop Indoriya supra, laid down sufficient guidelines to check such arbitrariness, which has not been heeded to by the respondents. Result is that only those, who are already working on contract basis with the respondents, would get preference as besides the marks of experience, good marks would be awarded to them on the basis of interview. Moreover, 30 marks for interview is excessive as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav supra, which should not normally exceed to 12.½% of the total marks. 7. Moreover, 30 marks for interview is excessive as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav supra, which should not normally exceed to 12.½% of the total marks. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners in another set of writ petitions, who acquired the qualification of B.A.M.S. later than 15/9/2008, argued that petitioners in their cases possess the requisite qualification for the post of Rural Ayurved Chikitsak when fresh advertisement was published on 30/4/2012. They are duly registered with the Board of Indian Medicine, Rajasthan. They have also completed their internship. Learned counsel argued that the omnibus amendment made to the Rules of 2008 provides that all those candidates, who have acquired eligibility qualification on the date of interview, will have to be treated eligible as per condition No.15. Once the earlier process of selection was cancelled and a fresh advertisement has been issued, it would be deemed that it was a fresh process started for initial recruitment in service. Merely because in the meantime process of selection by way of direct recruitment was undertaken as per Part-V of the Rules of 2008, it would not mean that candidates, who may have acquired eligibility before 1/1/2013 with reference to Rule 13, would not be eligibile for appointment. It is contended that according to Rule 13, age for the purpose of eligibility for direct recruitment will have to be seen on the 1st day of January of the year following last date for receipt of such applications. In the present case therefore, eligibility of the candidates should be on the basis of age examined as on 1/1/2013. 8. Learned counsel argued that this court in earlier litigation quashed the process of selection, being arbitrary and lacking in transparency as to the method and criteria of evaluating merit. This time, again the respondents have arbitrarily awarded 40 marks for educational qualification, 30 marks for experience and 30 for interview, whereas there is no such stipulation in the Rules of 2008 for making such prescription. Rules have not been amended to prescribe any such criteria. There is no basis for awarding 30 marks for experience. This would give undue advantage and preference to the candidates, who are already working with the respondents on contract basis. Rules have not been amended to prescribe any such criteria. There is no basis for awarding 30 marks for experience. This would give undue advantage and preference to the candidates, who are already working with the respondents on contract basis. Petitioners are entitled to get benefit of experience on the basis of registration with the Board of Indian Medicine, Rajasthan inasmuch as, they were registered after acquiring the degree of BAMS. It is argued that even otherwise, the respondents originally advertised 320 posts, which were subsequently increased to 378. Number of posts have thus been increased by 58 and therefore rights of those, who acquired eligibility subsequently, to compete against such posts, cannot be curtailed. It is therefore prayed that the writ petition be allowed. 9. Per contra, Shri Rajendra Prasad, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State argued that the Rules of 2008 were enforced w.e.f. 17/3/2008 to cater the needs of health care in rural areas. Rule 5 provides for initial constitution of service out of persons regularly recruited under the Rules of 1973 and opting for this service and persons recruited to the service in accordance with the provisions of these Rules. Government issued Advertisement No.1/2008 on 21/7/2008 inviting applications for filling up 320 posts of Rural Ayurved Chikitsak. In view of the additional requirement however, finally appointments were sought to be given against 378 posts. This court in Anoop Indoriya, not being satisfied with the criteria adopted by the committee constituted in Rule 20 in making initial recruitment, declared the selection illegal. At the same time, however, this Court directed the respondents to hold the selection again after laying down the fresh criteria and awarding marks to each candidate as to determine the comparative merit. But this Court exempted those candidates, who applied earlier from submitting fresh application forms and directed that their age shall be counted as on 1/1/2009. Since this process was started for initial recruitment immediately after Rules of 2008 were enforced, initial recruitment has to be confined to the persons, who already possessed the eligibility qualification at the time of issuing first advertisement. Since this process was started for initial recruitment immediately after Rules of 2008 were enforced, initial recruitment has to be confined to the persons, who already possessed the eligibility qualification at the time of issuing first advertisement. Even when fresh advertisement has been issued, process of selection, which was initiated pursuant to Advertisement No.1/2008 issued on 21/7/2008, has thus in a way been saved with the only difference that those, who had already applied in response to the earlier advertisement, were not required to apply afresh. But fresh opportunity was given to those, who were eligible with reference to the cut-off date of the earlier advertisement, to again apply for appointment. 10. Learned Additional Advocate General argued that the process of selection adopted by the respondents was in conformity with the earlier judgment. Those, who are raising objections to this process have in fact had an opportunity to participate in the process of selection for direct recruitment through RPSC. They having failed therein, are estopped from questioning the correctness of the procedure adopted by the respondents in making selection for initial recruitment. It is argued that the Supreme Court has consistently held that the eligibility has to be examined on the basis of cut-off date fixed in the rules and in absence thereof, on the basis of the date fixed in the advertisement. It is only in absence of both that the last date of submission of application would be the cut-off date. Fixing of the same cut-off date even in subsequent advertisement has also been upheld. It is argued that even if the appointment pursuant to advertisement No.1/2008 dated 21/7/2008 read with subsequent advertisement No.1/2012 dated 30/4/2012 takes place now, the candidates who have been recruited by the stream of direct recruitment by the RPSC in the year 2012, would be liable to placed in seniority below the candidates recruited with reference to Advertisement No.1/2008 read with 1/2012. This Court vide order dated 14/2/2014 required the respondents to file specific affidavit as to on what basis 40 marks have been awarded to the candidates for educational qualification, 30 for experience and 30 marks for interview. An additional affidavit has been filed in compliance of that order by the respondents clarifying those issues. This Court vide order dated 14/2/2014 required the respondents to file specific affidavit as to on what basis 40 marks have been awarded to the candidates for educational qualification, 30 for experience and 30 marks for interview. An additional affidavit has been filed in compliance of that order by the respondents clarifying those issues. Apart therefrom, the respondents have also in their additional affidavit made it clear "that the marks for experience has been awarded from the date of registration of the candidate with the Board of Indian Medicine, Rajasthan and 30 marks for experience were to be allocated on the basis of date of registration and for every year 3 marks were to be allocated upto the maximum of 30 marks from the date of registration from Board of Indian Medicine, Rajasthan". 11. Learned Additional Advocate General in support of his arguments has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Shankar K.Mandal Vs. State of Bihar : (2003) 3 SCC 519, Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Chander Shekhar : (1997) 4 SCC 18 , Jasbir Rani & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2002) 1 SCC 124 , State of Rajasthan Vs. Hitendra Kumar Bhatt : (1997) 6 SCC 574 , Bhupinderpal Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others : (2000) 5 SCC 262 and Shri Parvez Qadir Vs. Union of India : (1975) 4 SCC 318 . 12. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 13. The moot question that requires determination by this court is whether recruitment undertaken by the respondents by advertisement No.1/2012 dated 30/4/2012 is being made in continuation of the process of selection initiated pursuant to Advertisement No.1/2008 dated 21/7/2008 or whether fresh advertisement dated 30/4/2012 also entitles the candidates eligible on that day to apply for appointment in response thereto? The respondents are seeking to defend their action by contending that the single bench of this court in Anoop Indoriya had merely declared selection and appointment illegal but did not cancel the entire process of selection. The respondents are seeking to defend their action by contending that the single bench of this court in Anoop Indoriya had merely declared selection and appointment illegal but did not cancel the entire process of selection. The first direction in the operative part of the judgment aforesaid clearly shows that the single bench of this court declared not only appointments but also selection as illegal and directed respondents to hold fresh selection after determining criteria therefor and the facility was given to the candidates, who had applied earlier that they were not required to submit fresh application form and they would be treated as eligible taking note of the earlier date of selection. In fact, all the candidates, who were appointed pursuant to the first advertisement were permitted to continue in service till fresh selection was held. Contention that this court in Anoop Indoriya intended the recruitment to be confined to candidates, who acquired eligibility with reference to the cut-off date of that advertisement, cannot be accepted because in fact the court directed that the candidates, who had earlier appeared in the selection, may be issued call letters without requiring them to submit application forms and be treated as eligible taking note of the earlier date of selection. This rather implies that others will have to submit applications. It was nowhere intended by the court that fresh applications would be confined to only such candidates, who had acquired eligibility prior to 21/7/2008 or 15/9/2008. 14. In order to appreciate the argument of the respondents, what is meant by the word “initial recruitment” has to be understood first. Rule 2(g) of the Rules of 2008 defines "initial recruitment" to mean first recruitment for initial constitution of the service made in accordance with Part-IV of these rules. Rule 20 of the Rules of 2008 contained in Part-IV provides for constitution of a committee headed by Principal Secretary of the Government in the Department of Ayurved as its Chairman. Rule 21 thereof provides procedure for invitation of the application forms and stipulate that applications for initial recruitment to posts in the Service shall be invited by the Member-Secretary of the committee by advertising the vacancies to be filled, in the official Gazette or in such other manner, as may be deemed fit by the Government. Rule 24 of the Rules of 2008 provides scrutiny of applications by Director of Ayurved Department. Rule 24 of the Rules of 2008 provides scrutiny of applications by Director of Ayurved Department. Rule 25 provides that the Committee envisaged under Rule 20 shall prepare a list of the candidates, whom, they consider suitable for appointment to the posts concerned, arranged in the order of merit and forward the same to the Government. The word "direct recruitment" has been defined in Section 2(e) of the Rules of 2008 to mean recruitment made after initial recruitment for subsequent years with Part-V of the Rules of 2008. Rule 27 Part-V provides that the applications for direct recruitment to posts in the Service shall be invited by the Commission by advertising the vacancies to be filled, in the Official Gazette or in such other manner, as may be deemed fit. Provisions contained in Rule 27 are identical to Rule 21. Similarly, provision contained in Rule 28 of Part-IV is identical to Rule 22 except the difference that the word “Government” in Rule 22 has been substituted by the word “Commission” in Rule 28. Similarly, Rules, 29, 30, 31 and 32 of Part-V of the Rules of 2008 respectively are identical to Rules 23, 24, 25 and 26 except with the difference that the word “Government” wherever appears in the provision contained in Part-IV, has been substituted by the word “Commission” contained in Part-V thereof. For recruitment by either of the method, provision with regard to eligibility as to educational qualification and age etc. are identical. Part-IV is intended to be indicated as a one-time measure whenever initial recruitment of the service is made. It appears that the rule making authority wanted the appointments to be made at the initial stage immediately. In order therefore to avoid delay that otherwise takes place in the recruitment, a high level committee was constituted under Rule 20 to make selections. Although, it is another matter that appointments by direct recruitment under Part-V of the Rules have taken place earlier than the initial recruitment under Part-IV as the same was struck down in the present litigation. In order therefore to avoid delay that otherwise takes place in the recruitment, a high level committee was constituted under Rule 20 to make selections. Although, it is another matter that appointments by direct recruitment under Part-V of the Rules have taken place earlier than the initial recruitment under Part-IV as the same was struck down in the present litigation. It is thus clear that whether recruitment is made by way of initial recruitment under Part-IV or by direct recruitment under Part-V of the Rules of 2008, provisions contained in Rule 13 relating to age and those contained in the Schedule appended to the Rules of 2008 with regard to eligibility of educational qualification and age or relaxation thereof are common and would be applicable to both the modes of recruitment. 15. Clearly thus, even if some of the petitioners had appeared in the recruitment held subsequently in Part-V for direct recruitment and failed to acquire appointment, that would not debar them from applying again in response to the fresh advertisement dated 30/4/2012. Recruitment made by either of the modes, requires application to be invited from open market. Unlike in other set of rules, where initial constitution of service is made by screening existing employees, no such provision has been inserted in the Rules of 2008. That would mean that even the rule making authority wanted the initial recruitment for the purpose of initial constitution of service to be made by inviting applications from whoever in open market is eligible to apply for appointment on that day. Action of the respondents in restricting the recruitment to those, who acquired eligibility prior to 15/9/2008, seeking thereby to oust the otherwise identically situated open category candidates, is therefore wholly unjust and arbitrary. Whoever has acquired eligibility prior to issuance of advertisement dated 30/4/2012 has to be treated eligible. They have to be treated constituting one and single class and cannot be bifurcated into two. Classification that respondents are seeking to make on the basis of cut-off date with reference to earlier advertisement No.1/2008 dated 21/7/2008 does not distinguish the candidates from those acquiring such eligibility of educational qualification subsequent thereto till issuance of the advertisement. Even this court in Anoop Indoriya intended a fresh advertisement to be issued after laying down the guidelines and criteria for selection. Even this court in Anoop Indoriya intended a fresh advertisement to be issued after laying down the guidelines and criteria for selection. It was therefore that this court directed that those, who have already applied would be treated as eligible with reference to earlier advertisement No.1/2008. This was intended to safeguard interests of such candidates, who may have in the meantime become overage. Very fact that the single bench extended benefit of relaxation in age to such candidates if eventually they have become age barred at the time of issuance of fresh advertisement fortifies that all candidates, who were eligible when the fresh advertisement was issued, were entitled to apply. Prescription of eligibility on the basis of previous cut-off date is therefore wholly illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable, being ultravires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 16. Relied judgment of the Supreme Court in Jasbir Rani supra is distinguishable. In that case, advertisement was issued on 18/9/1997. The cut-off date for the purpose of determination of age and eligibility was fixed as 1/9/1997. The authorities initially confined the recruitment only to the male candidates but subsequently decided to call applications from the female candidates by issuing the second advertisement on 19/9/1998 i.e. after the earlier advertisement dated 18/9/1997. It was in order to save the candidates, who become over age at that time that in the subsequent advertisement also, the same cut-off date was retained i.e. 1/9/1997. In those facts, the Supreme Court upheld the action of the department. Such are not the facts of the present case. 15/9/2008 may be as the cutoff date with reference to earlier advertisement for the candidates applying in subsequent advertisement to give facility to those candidates, who may become over-age at the time of issuing subsequent advertisements. This facility has already been extended by the Single Bench of this Court in Anoop Indoriya supra providing that the candidates, who had already appeared in response to the earlier advertisement, would not be required to apply afresh. Action of the respondents to that extent has to be treated as just and reasonable. This would be with the spare of respondents power to grant age relaxation to otherwise over age candidates for a valid reason. But grant of age relaxation and restricting the benefit to only such candidates are two altogether different situations. Action of the respondents to that extent has to be treated as just and reasonable. This would be with the spare of respondents power to grant age relaxation to otherwise over age candidates for a valid reason. But grant of age relaxation and restricting the benefit to only such candidates are two altogether different situations. Respondents on that basis are not justified in debarring those candidates, who acquired the eligibility qualification after 15/9/2008 to apply for appointment in response to the fresh advertisement. 17. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma supra is also wholly distinguishable as in that case, a particular date was prescribed as the last date for filling application forms. It was held by the Supreme Court that eligibility of candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date. In Shankar K.Mandal supra, it was held by the Supreme Court that eligibility must be satisfied by candidates seeking employment with reference to the date appointed in the relevant service rules. In the present case, in so far as age is concerned, Rule 13 envisages that a candidate must have attained the age of 20 years and must not have attained the age of 45 years on the first day of January following the last date fixed for receipt of applications. The age for the eligibility of the candidates in the present matters therefore will have to be seen as per the advertisement dated 30/4/2012 as on 1/1/2013. However, there is apparently no cut-off date in the rules for determination of eligibility on the basis of educational qualification and therefore respondents are relying on the further criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in Shankar K.Mandal supra that if there is no cut-off date in the rules, then either the last date fixed for receiving application forms or the appointed date, indicated in the advertisement, should form basis for determining eligibility. Such appointed date in the advertisement in the present case has been indicated to be 15/9/2008. But when the prescription of this date has been subjected to challenge, it would have to qualify the test of reasonableness. 18. Judgment of the Supreme Court in K.Prasad supra, is wholly distinguishable on facts and the ratio thereof cannot be applied to the present case. But when the prescription of this date has been subjected to challenge, it would have to qualify the test of reasonableness. 18. Judgment of the Supreme Court in K.Prasad supra, is wholly distinguishable on facts and the ratio thereof cannot be applied to the present case. The judgment of this Court in Bansi Lal Jakhar supra is also distinguishable because in that case again, question of eligibility that was examined was on the basis of age and not the qualification. In Bhupinderpal Singh supra, the Supreme Court was dealing with a case of recruitment, where last date fixed in the advertisement dated 12/1/1996 for receiving application forms was 15/2/1996. Upper age prescribed was 36 years as on 1/1/1996. However, a corrigendum was issued on 7/10/1996 increasing the upper age to 42 years as on 1/1/1996. Candidate, who could not apply earlier due to over age, were advised to apply latest by 30/10/1996. Some candidates, who did not have requisite educational qualifications as on 15/2/1996, also applied and some of them were selected for appointments. A circular was issued by the government on 17/3/1997 conveying the decision that the candidates, who have acquired requisite educational qualification at the time of interview and have been selected, may be given appointment though they did not acquire the requisite educational qualifications by 15/2/1996. In those facts, the High Court held that if cut-off date is laid down in relevant rules, it has to be followed, otherwise it may be prescribed in advertisement and if no such date is prescribed, eligibility has to be determined as on the date of receipt of application. No doubt, in the present case, in the advertisement dated 30/4/2012, the last date fixed for receiving applications was 25/5/2012. The eligibility of educational qualification acquired by the candidates should have been considered with reference to that date. But there is no rational or reasonable basis for prescribing 15/9/2008 as the cut-off date. This restriction has no reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. 19. Perusal of advertisement No.1/2008 dated 21/7/2008 reveals that 15/9/2008 has of course been given therein as the cut-off date and that too in a situation when advertisement No.1/2012 was issued almost four years thereafter on 30/4/2012. This restriction has no reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. 19. Perusal of advertisement No.1/2008 dated 21/7/2008 reveals that 15/9/2008 has of course been given therein as the cut-off date and that too in a situation when advertisement No.1/2012 was issued almost four years thereafter on 30/4/2012. But there is absolutely no justification for debarring the candidates from open market, who may have acquired eligibility during this long span of four years and restricting recruitment to only those, who had acquired qualification prior to 15/9/2008. Then, comes the third criteria that if there is no date appointed then eligibility criteria shall be applied by recourse to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received by the competent authority. In the present case, last date fixed was 25/5/2012 and therefore all those, who acquired eligibility of educational qualification prior to that date, would be eligible for appointment on the basis of educational qualification and their eligibility on the basis of age shall be examined with reference to first day of the January next following the year in which advertisement is issued, which in the present writ petitions would be 1/1/2013. Kind of restriction imposed by respondents infringes the fundamental right of the petitioners to equality guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution and right of equality in public employment under Article 16 of the Constitution. There are no distinguishing marks or features that separate one category from another. There is no reasonable basis or intelligible criteria that distinguishes one category from another because both being eligible and unemployed on the date of fresh advertisement, would broadly fall in the same category. This Court is therefore persuaded to declare the said restriction ultravires of the Constitution of India. 20. Coming now to the criteria evolved by the respondents for selection by direct recruitment, this in Part-V of the Rules of 2008 is written examination followed by interview by the Public Service Commission. But in Part-IV pertaining to initial recruitment made by the committee, the criteria to be adopted by the committee has been left to the discretion of the respondents. Rules in this regard are completely silent. It goes however without saying that any criteria, which the respondents adopt, has to be just and reasonable and has to stand the judicial scrutiny. But in Part-IV pertaining to initial recruitment made by the committee, the criteria to be adopted by the committee has been left to the discretion of the respondents. Rules in this regard are completely silent. It goes however without saying that any criteria, which the respondents adopt, has to be just and reasonable and has to stand the judicial scrutiny. This court therefore in earlier litigation called upon the respondent-State to disclose the basis of selection. Learned Additional Advocate General then appearing for the State informed that no criteria has been notified by the selection committee and the record of the selection committee was not available with the government nor any such record exists. In fact, one of the candidates even sought information under Right to Information Act, 2005 and was informed that no such record was available to show as to what criterion was adopted. It was for that reason that this court declared the selection illegal directing respondents to hold fresh selection after evolving criteria and observed that endeavour of the respondents should be to have transparent, fair and proper selections with the intention to select best and meritorious. Respondents have for that purpose in clause 2.1.2 of the advertisement dated 30/4/2012 laid down the criteria of selection. Respondents have in compliance of the order of this Court dated 14/2/2014 filed an affidavit in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16163/2012 (Priyanka Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) explaining in detail the criteria adopted for selection by way of initial condition of service. In so far as marks of experience are concerned, it has been clarified by the respondents that 3 marks were awarded to the candidates for each completed year upto maximum of 30 marks. In other words, if a candidate has worked for 10 years from the date of registration with the Board of Indian Medicine for Rajasthan, he/she would be entitled to 30 marks and if worked for 5 years, he/she would be awarded 15 marks for such experience. That appears to be a reasonable criterion. 21. As regards 30 marks fixed for interview, this has been clarified by the respondents in their affidavit, such marks were to be allocated on the basis of ‘knowledge of subject’, ‘presentation’, ‘personality’ and knowledge about ‘current affairs’, each containing 10 marks. That appears to be a reasonable criterion. 21. As regards 30 marks fixed for interview, this has been clarified by the respondents in their affidavit, such marks were to be allocated on the basis of ‘knowledge of subject’, ‘presentation’, ‘personality’ and knowledge about ‘current affairs’, each containing 10 marks. Considering that earlier selection, despite the fact that it was made by the High Power Committee, was found tainted, allocation of 30 marks for the purpose of interview appears to be excessive and unreasonable. Although the respondents have bifurcating the same in three parts in that sought to justify it by award of such marks would be guided by the ‘knowledge of subject’, ‘presentation’, ‘personality’ and knowledge about ‘current affairs’ but 30 marks, only on the basis of ‘interview’ would certainly give an edge to the chosen few, particularly when selection is not based on any written examination and is based entirely on the basis of marks awarded for educational qualification of B.A.M.S., experience and interview. The Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav supra held that normally, marks of interview should not exceed 12.5. This was so held to check the arbitrariness. In P.Mohanan Pillai supra also, the Supreme Court has reiterated the view expressed in Ashok Kumar Yadav supra. No doubt, the task of selection has been entrusted to the High Power Committee headed by the Principal Secretary to the Government in Ayurved Department as Chairman, Secretary Department of Personnel as nominee Member of the Government, Professor of the Government Ayurved College as nominee Member and Director Ayurved as Member Secretary but considering that the same selection committee in earlier selection neither adopted any criteria nor prepared any record for making selection, allocation of 30 marks for interview alone as against 30 marks for experience and 40 for educational qualification, would again leave the scope of subjective choice, element of arbitrariness and would be rather excessive. In the opinion of this Court, marks of interview should be reduced from 30 to 15, whereas marks of educational qualification should be correspondingly enhanced to 55 instead of 40. This is because already once the selection made by the said High Power Committee has been set-aside by this Court. In the opinion of this Court, marks of interview should be reduced from 30 to 15, whereas marks of educational qualification should be correspondingly enhanced to 55 instead of 40. This is because already once the selection made by the said High Power Committee has been set-aside by this Court. Instead of therefore, striking down the selection again, endeavour of this Court has been to save the selection by enhancing the weightage of the educational qualifications with such additional safeguards as may eventually form just, equitable and reasonable criteria of selection. 22. Adverting now therefore to the marks of educational qualification, in the additional affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been clarified that 40 marks shall be awarded on the basis of marks secured by the candidates in the degree of B.A.M.S. Grievances of the petitioners in this respect are fully justified because in this criteria, respondents have given no weightage whatsoever to the marks of either Secondary or Senior Secondary or post graduation degree of M.D. or even Phd. In order to eliminate any possibility of arbitrariness and lack of objectivity, it would be proper to direct that weightage should be given to not only the qualification of B.A.M.S. but also that of M.D. or Phd., it should also be given to the merit of Secondary Examination and Senior Secondary Examination. But no such weightage has been given to any of them. Such weightage to be given to all those candidates should be worked out on the basis of percentage of marks secured by the candidates therein. It is essential to give weightage to all these educational qualifications for two reasons, firstly because the adopted criteria should ensure objectivity in the selection and eliminate scope of arbitrariness and element of pick and choose and secondly, this is necessary also because criteria adopted by the respondents is not satisfactory as it does not provide for any checks and balances. In peculiarities attached to this case, therefore the following is being evaluated as the reasonable criterion by judicial intervention :- I. Educational Qualification :- 1. Secondary Examination -5 marks 2. Senior Secondary Examination -5 marks 3. B.A.M.S. Degree -25 marks 4. Post Graduation in any subject of Ayurved -10 marks 5. Phd. -10 marks II. Experience -30 marks III. Interview -15 marks 23. Secondary Examination -5 marks 2. Senior Secondary Examination -5 marks 3. B.A.M.S. Degree -25 marks 4. Post Graduation in any subject of Ayurved -10 marks 5. Phd. -10 marks II. Experience -30 marks III. Interview -15 marks 23. In view of above discussion, the writ petitions deserve to succeed and the same are hereby allowed in the following terms :- (1) Clause 15 of Advertisement No.1/2012 dated 30/4/2012 to the extent it restricts consideration for appointment on the post of Rural Ayurved Chikitsak only to such candidates, who acquired eligibility of educational qualification prior to 15/9/2008, is declared illegal and ultravires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. All those, who have acquired eligibility of educational qualification on or before 25/5/2012, the last date upto which the application forms were to be received, shall be treated eligible for appointment, for which purpose a further date not later than 31/5/2014, may be notified, so as to provide opportunity to candidates, who were so eligible on 25/5/2012 and could not apply due to the said restriction. (2) Candidates, who had already applied in response to earlier advertisement dated 18/9/1997 need not apply again. (3) Candidates, who had acquired qualification of eligibility on or before 15/09/2008 with reference to cut-off date mentioned in earlier advertisement and did not apply earlier, would be eligible for selection in the ongoing process regardless of their becoming over age on 1/1/2013. (4) Challenge to the prescription of 30 marks of experience is repelled and criteria for prescribing 3 marks for each completed year with reference to date of registration with the Board of Indian Medicine, Rajasthan is upheld. (5) Criteria of prescribing 30 marks for interview is declared excessive and unreasonable and is substituted by 15 marks with 5 marks each for the ‘subject knowledge’, ‘presentation’ and ‘personality and knowledge of current affairs’, respectively. (6) 40 marks awarded for educational qualification stand enhanced to 55 marks, which would be allocated on the pattern detailed out in para 22 supra. 24. Respondents are directed to complete the process of selection now within four months from the date copy of this judgment is produced before them. All the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.