JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners, in these writ petitions, have challenged the validity of the amended proviso to Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (for short 'the Rules of 1965' hereinafter) vide notification dated 06.02.2013, whereby age relaxation, subject to maximum of five years has been extended to the candidates working under the Government, Chief Minister BPL, Jeevan Raksha Kosh, National Rural Health Mission, Medi Care Relief Society, AIDS Control Society, Institutes under Cooperative Department or Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar. The petitioners have also challenged the validity of provition of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1965, which provides determination of maximum age of a candidate on the first day of January next falling the last date fixed for the receipt of the applications, and claimed that the maximum age of a candidate should be determined, while taking into consideration the last date of submission of application. 2. The petitioners, who are working as Nursing Staff in the private hospitals run by private medical colleges, have claimed that they are also discharging similar kind of duties as discharged by the Nursing Staff, working under the Government, Chief Minister BPL, Jeevan Raksha Kosh, National Rural Health Mission, Medi Care Relief Society, AIDS Control Society, Institutes under Cooperative Department or Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar but the Government has discriminated with them by restricting the benefit of age relaxation, subject to maximum of five years to those persons only, who are working under the Government, Chief Minister BPL, Jeevan Raksha Kosh, National Rural Health Mission, Medi Care Relief Society, AIDS Control Society, Institutes under Cooperative Department or Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar, while excluding the petitioners. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that they are also discharging similar kind of duties as performed by the Nursing Staff working under the Government, Chief Minister BPL, Jeevan Raksha Kosh, National Rural Health Mission, Medi Care Relief Society, AIDS Control Society, Institutes under Cooperative Department or Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar and, therefore, they are also entitled for benefit of age relaxation on the similar lines. It is also contended that there is no justification to deny the benefit of age relaxation to the candidates having experience of working as Nursing Staff with the private hospitals. 3. It is also contended that there is no justification to deny the benefit of age relaxation to the candidates having experience of working as Nursing Staff with the private hospitals. 3. The petitioners have also claimed that fixing of cut-off date prescribing maximum age for a candidate for direct recruitment to the service as first day of January next falling the last date fixed for the receipt of the applications is arbitrary and ultra-vires and has no nexus with the object to be achieved and, therefore, the same is liable to be struck down and the respondents be directed to consider the last date of receipt of application as cut-off date for determination of maximum age of a candidate. 4. Per contra, learned counsels for the respondents-State have argued that there is no illegality in making provisions for age relaxation subject to maximum of five years to the persons working under the Government, Chief Minister BPL, Jeevan Raksha Kosh, National Rural Health Mission, Medi Care Relief Society, AIDS Control Society, Institutes under Cooperative Department or Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar vis-a-vis the persons working as Nursing Staff in the private hospitals. It is also contended that the said classification is permissible under the law because the same has been done in view of the fact that the persons serving as Nursing Staff under the Government, National Rural Health Mission, Medicare Relief Society AIDS Control Society, Institutes under Cooperative Department or Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar have additional responsibility, sensitivity and liability, which the petitioners are lacking. The learned counsels for the respondents have placed reliance on the decision passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mool Chand Jat & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.12346/2012) , wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has rejected the similar kind of challenge to the proviso to Rule 19 of the Rules of 1961 made by the Pharmacists working in different private institutes vis-a-vis Pharmacists working under the Government, Chief Minister BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh, National Rural Health Mission, and other projects of the State Government or the Sahakari Upbhokta. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the material placed on record. 6. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the material placed on record. 6. The amended proviso to Rule 10 of Rules of 1965, which is under challenge, is reproduced hereunder: "The upper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxed, for the posts which are not in the purview of commission, by a period equal to service rendered on the similar post in any capacity, subject to maximum of 5 years, under the Government, Chief Minister BPL, Jeevan Raksha Kosh, National Rural Health Mission, Medi Care Relief Society, AIDS Control Society, Institutes under Cooperative Department or Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar." 7. The benefit of age relaxation subject to maximum of five years has been given under amended proviso to Rule 10 to the Nursing Staff, who obtained the experience, while working under the Government, Chief Minister BPL, Jeevan Raksha Kosh, National Rural Health Mission Medi Care Relief Society, AIDS Control Society, Institutes under Cooperative Department or Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar. Such benefit has not been extended to the petitioners and likes, who are working in private hospitals. 8. We are of the opinion that the persons working as Nursing Staff in the private hospitals cannot be treated similar to the persons working under Government, Chief Minister BPL, Jeevan Raksha Kosh, National Rural Health Mission, Medi Care Relief Society, AIDS Control Society, Institutes under Cooperative Department or Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar. There is a difference in requirement of job and liabilities, and the persons working as Nursing Staff in the private hospitals cannot take plea of discrimination. Working in the private hospitals stand on different footing and cannot be said to be on similar terms and conditions as rendered in the Government, Chief Minister BPL, Jeevan Raksha Kosh, National Rural Health Mission, Medi Care Relief Society, AIDS Control Society, Institutes under Cooperative Department or Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar. 9. A Co-ordinate Bench in Mool Chand Jat's case (supra), while examining similar issue, has held as under: "Experience gained in private job has not been included for grant of bonus marks. In our opinion, private job stands on different footing and cannot be said to be on similar terms and conditions as rendered in Government Institutions etc. as provided in amended Rule 19. The private Pharmacists cannot be treated of same class, hence, they cannot take plea of discrimination. In our opinion, private job stands on different footing and cannot be said to be on similar terms and conditions as rendered in Government Institutions etc. as provided in amended Rule 19. The private Pharmacists cannot be treated of same class, hence, they cannot take plea of discrimination. It is open to the State Government to give bonus marks to particular class of person. As there is difference in conditions, liabilities, requirement of job, the petitioners cannot claim similar treatment. The classification made by the Government cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. It is open to the Government to classify person for such purpose. Classification made cannot be said to be irrational. Article 14 permits classification on different bases. The responsibility of Government job/cooperative is different than private job. Since there is qualitative difference also in jobs, classification cannot be said to be arbitrary. We are not able to accept the submission that private work can be equated in all respects with the jobs enumerated in amended proviso to Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965. The condition of service responsibility differs from job to job, thus, private Pharmacists cannot claim part of the same class. Hence, plea of discrimination is not available to them. 10. Another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.10985/2013 (Dr. Ashutosh Parihar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) , while examining the validity of a similar provisions under the Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homoeopathy and Naturopathy Service Rules, 1973 has observed as under: "Having given anxious consideration to the submissions made and having examined the material placed on record, we are clearly of the view that this writ petition remains bereft of substance and does not merit admission. The material placed on record makes it clear that before starting of the selection process in question, by the notification dated 13.05.2013, the existing provisions of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1973 were amended with insertion of the following proviso: "Provided further that the Appointing Authority shall scrutinise the applications received by it to the posts of Ayurved Chikitsadhikari, Homoeopathy Chikitsadhikari, Unani Chikitsadhikari. The merit shall be prepared by the Appointing Authority on the basis of marks obtained in such qualifying examination as specified in the Schedule appended to these rules and such bonus marks as may be specified by the State Government having regard to the length of experience on similar work under the Government, Chief Minister BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh and National Rural Health Mission, as the case may be. The decision of the Appointing Authority regarding the eligibility or otherwise of a candidates, shall be final." It appears that the Government had issued an order on 28.05.2013 specifying the bonus marks; and the stipulation in Clause 7 of the advertisement (Annex.5) came to be stated in accord therewith. We may observe that validity or otherwise of the provision for bonus marks is not in issue in the present case. The consideration herein is to the limited extent as to whether restriction of bonus marks only to the persons working in the referred organizations/projects suffers from any illegality. It is noticed that in the case of Mool Chand Jat & 15 Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors: 2013(1) WLC (Raj.) 239 , a Division Bench of this Court has rejected similar nature contention in relation to the recruitment to the post of Pharmacist in the following: "12. In view of the above, if benefit of bonus marks has been extended only to the Pharmacists, who have gained experience under the Government Institutions, Cooperative Department, Shahakari Upbhokta Bhandar etc. As enumerated in the amended Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965 and such benefit has not been made available to the private Pharmacists, who have gained experience in private institutes/shops, it cannot be said that action of the Government was arbitrary or violative of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. Classification made by the Government does not suffer from the vice of abritrariness, rather it appears to be reasonable and rational one. No case of discrimination is made out." Then, in the case of Arvind Singh & Ors. Classification made by the Government does not suffer from the vice of abritrariness, rather it appears to be reasonable and rational one. No case of discrimination is made out." Then, in the case of Arvind Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4709/2013, decided on 29.08.2013 , in relation to the recruitment to the post of Pharmacist, an stipulation about grant of bonus marks to the persons working in referred organizations/projects only after the minimum experience of 1 year was put to question; and it was contended that total denial of bonus marks for the services rendered below 1 year was unconstitutional and the persons with lesser experience ought to have been provided proportionate benefit. This court rejected such contentions with the following observations: "Having considered the rival submissions, we are unable to find any illegality or unconstitutionality in the provisions sought to be questioned. Awarding of bonus marks for the purpose of recruitment is itself a matter of concession; and cannot be considered to be a matter of right. As to how, and in what manner, the concession is, if at all, to be given, remains within the domain of the employer concerned. The Government has proceeded to recognise the experience on similar nature work in the specific schemes/organizations/projects and has provided for 10% bonus marks for every completed year of experience with maximum of 30% bonus marks. We are unable to find any basis for the claim made by the petitioners that such bonus marks ought to be provided for the experience of lesser duration too, or on proportionate basis. As to which, and how much, of the experience is to be treated to be the requisite is, again, a matter within the domain and jurisdiction of the employer concerned; and it cannot be claimed as a matter of right that if the petitioners have worked for about 8-9 months, they should be given some bonus marks on the so-called proportionate basis. We are clearly of the view that on the claim as made, the petitioners have failed to show any illegality or unconstitutionality in the provisions impugned or any illegality in the decision taken by the Government. " The observations aforesaid directly apply to the present case too with necessary variations. We are clearly of the view that on the claim as made, the petitioners have failed to show any illegality or unconstitutionality in the provisions impugned or any illegality in the decision taken by the Government. " The observations aforesaid directly apply to the present case too with necessary variations. If at all the bonus marks are to be given, which itself is a matter of concession, as to which particular experience is to be treated eligible for such concession is a matter within the domain of the respondents; and it cannot be claimed as a matter of right that the persons like the petitioner, who had allegedly rendered honourary services to the Charitable Project Society of Lions Club, be also treated as having the requisite experience." 11. We are in full agreement of the proposition of law laid down by the Coordinate Benches of this Court as above, on overall consideration of the relevant facts and the underlying objective of the amendment to Rule 10 of Rules of 1965 and after applying the same analogy, if we examine the proviso to Rule 10 of the Rules of 1965, we are of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the action of the Government in providing benefit of age relaxation to the persons working under the Government, Chief Minister BPL, Jeevan Raksha Kosh, National Rural Health Mission, Medi Care Relief Society, AIDS Control Society, Institutes under Cooperative Department or Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar while excluding the persons working under the private hospitals. 12. So far regarding challenge to the fixing of cut-off date for determination of maximum age of a candidate on the first day of January next falling the last date fixed for the receipt of the application is concerned, the controversy is no more res integra and has already been decided by a three Judge Bench of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while adjudging the similar provisions as provided under Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Service Rules, 1959 (for short 'the Rules of 1959' hereinafter) and Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962 (for short 'the Rules of 1962' hereinafter). A three Judge Bench of this Court in Surendra Singh Rao & 28 Ors. A three Judge Bench of this Court in Surendra Singh Rao & 28 Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 1995(1) WLC 197 , while adjudging the validity of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1959 has held as under: "24. To our mind, the fixing of a cutoff date in a service Rule is to ensure that all candidates eligible on such a date may be considered and the best candidates amongst them may be selected and appointed. The fixing of a cut-off date eliminates the uncertainty in the minds of prospective candidates about their eligibility. Moreover, fixing of such a date would no longer be open to challenge in light of Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal's case (supra) particularly when fixing of such a date could not be dubbed as capricious, whimsical or very much wide of the mark. Maybe by fixing of such a cut-off date, some candidates would be eligible and some would be ineligible. But this would happen in every case, where a cut-off date is fixed, whether by way of last date on receipt of applications or as on the date of the application. As stated elsewhere, when the date is fixed by the Rule, itself, it is known well in advance to every body; on the other hand if the date of notification or advertisement or last date of receipt of applications is fixed as a cut-off date, it would always be fluctuating according to whims and caprices, of the person charged with the duty of fixing such a date. We, therefore, find that fixing a cut-off date in the Service Rules is not bad constitutionally. It cannot be said that the cut-off date fixed by the rule has been picked from a hat or is quite wide of the mark. 25...... 26...... 27. Hence we could answer question No. 1 by saying that the rule making authority was competent to fix a cutoff date prescribing maximum age for direct recruitment and merely because such a cut-off date has been fixed, it could not be said to be arbitrary or capricious. On a parity of reasoning, we hold that likewise fixing of a cutoff date for reckoning minimum age for recruitment in a service rule could not be dubbed as arbitrary or capricious so as to enable the court to strike it down. 28. On a parity of reasoning, we hold that likewise fixing of a cutoff date for reckoning minimum age for recruitment in a service rule could not be dubbed as arbitrary or capricious so as to enable the court to strike it down. 28. We have already said that a cutoff date with reference to last date of receipt of application, when a service rule already fixes such a date, would be improper. Such a date could always be manipulated and would be uncertain and would fluctuate with the individual whim and caprice of the person charged with the fixing of the date. Such a date could not in anyways be known in advance. 29. Now, it may be stated that whether the statutory cut-off date precedes the last date fixed for inviting the application or succeeds such a date, would always be immaterial and would always provide a fixed point with reference to which the minimum and maximum age would be reckoned. All those who are eligible within such parameters would form one class and the classification cannot be said to be violative of the equality clauses of the Constitution of India. Hence, the third question is answered accordingly." 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Ami Lal Bhat v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in JT 1997 (6) S.C. 72 : AIR 1997 SC 2864 , while adjudging the validity of Rule 11(1) of the Rules of 1962 has held as under: "In the present case, the cut off date has been fixed by the State of Rajasthan under its Rules relating to various services with reference to the 1st of January following the year in which the applications are invited. All service Rules are uniform on this point. Looking to the various dates on which different departments and different heads of administration may issue their advertisements for recruitment, a uniform cut off date has been fixed in respect of all such advertisements as 1st January of the year following. This is to make for certainty. Such a uniform date prescribed under all service Rules and Regulations makes it easier for the prospective candidates to understand their eligibility for applying for the post in question. Such a date is not so wide off the mark as to be construed as grossly unreasonable or arbitrary. This is to make for certainty. Such a uniform date prescribed under all service Rules and Regulations makes it easier for the prospective candidates to understand their eligibility for applying for the post in question. Such a date is not so wide off the mark as to be construed as grossly unreasonable or arbitrary. The time gap between the advertisement and the cut off date is less than a year. It takes into account the fact that after the advertisement, time has to be allowed for receipt of applications, for their scrutiny, for calling candidates for interview, for preparing a panel of selected candidates and for actual appointment. The cut off date, therefore, cannot be considered as unreasonable. It was, however, strenuously urged before us that the only acceptable cut off date is the last date for receipt of applications under a given advertisement. Undoubtedly, this can be a possible cut off date. But there is no basis for urging that this is the only reasonable cut off date. Even such a date is liable to question in given circumstances. In the first place, making a cut off date dependent on the last date for receiving applications, makes it more subject to vagaries of the department concerned, making it dependant on the date when each department issues an advertisement, and the date which each department concerned fixes as the last date for receiving applications. A person who may fail on the wrong side of such a cut off date may well contend that the cut off date is unfair, since the advertisement could have been issued earlier: Or in the alternative that the cut off date could have been fixed later at the point of selection or appointment. Such an argument is always open, irrespective of the cut off date fixed and the manner in which it is fixed. That is by this court has said in the case of Parameshwaran Match Works(supra) and later cases that the cut off date is valid unless it is so capricious or whimsical as to be wholly unreasonable. To say that the only cut off date can be the last date for receiving applications, appears to be without any basis. That is by this court has said in the case of Parameshwaran Match Works(supra) and later cases that the cut off date is valid unless it is so capricious or whimsical as to be wholly unreasonable. To say that the only cut off date can be the last date for receiving applications, appears to be without any basis. In our view the cut off date which is fixed in the present case with reference to the beginning of the Calendar year following the date of application, cannot be considered as capricious or unreasonable. On the contrary, it is less prone to vagaries and is less uncertain." 14. In view of the law laid down by three Judge Bench of this Court in Surendra Singh Rao's case (supra) and by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Ami Lal Bhat's case (supra), challenge of the petitioners to the fixing of cut-off date for determination of maximum age of a candidate as provided under Rule 10 of the Rules of 1965 is concerned, the same also fails. 15. Hence, the challenge of the petitioners to Rule 10 of the Rules of 1965 and amended provision to the said Rule is bereft of any merit and, therefore, these writ petitions filed by the petitioners are hereby dismissed. No costs.Petition dismissed. *******