JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Ishita Yadu, holding brief of Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel representing the U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission and learned Standing counsel representing the State-respondents. The issue raised in this writ petition stands decided by a judgment and order dated 08.08.2016, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 18374 (S/S) of 2016. The said judgment is quoted hereinbelow: - "Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 as well as Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission,Lucknow. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have been discharging their duties on the posts of Lab Technician with the respondents on contract basis and hence, they are entitled to be given preference and also relaxation specially relaxation in age in the regular recruitment which is to be made by the Selection Commission pursuant to the advertisement/notification for selection dated 15.07.2016. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are performing the same duties which would be performed by regular selectees and as such keeping in view the judgement and order passed by this Court in the case of Seema Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ Petition No.190 (S/S) of 2013, subject matter of which pertained to grant of relaxation and preference to the incumbents who were working in ad hoc capacity and contract basis on the posts of Health Workers at the time of regular recruitment, the petitioners may also be granted the said benefit. He has also stated that for giving the benefits to those who have worked in ad hoc capacity or on contractual basis so far as the posts of staff nurse is concerned, relevant amendments have been made by the State Government in the Service Rules governing the conditions of service of the staff nurses. The said amendments have been made by the State Government by Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Nursing (Non-Gazetted) Service (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2016, notified on 11.02.2016. Be that as it may, let grievance of the petitioners be considered by the State Government. The said amendments have been made by the State Government by Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Nursing (Non-Gazetted) Service (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2016, notified on 11.02.2016. Be that as it may, let grievance of the petitioners be considered by the State Government. For the said purpose, the petitioners will be at liberty to make a representation to the authority concerned setting out all their grievances and taking all pleas which may be available to them and annexing all the documents on which they intend to rely within a week. If such a representation is made, the same shall be considered and decided by the authority concerned by passing a speaking and reasoned order within next two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order along with representation to be made by the petitioners. Since the subject matter of the advertisement notified on 15.07.2016, which has been annexed as Anneuxre no.1 to the writ petition, relates to selection/appointment on the post of Lab Technician under (1) Director General of Medical and Health Services,U.P. Lucknow and (2) Director, Medical Education and Training, U.P. Lucknow, the representation under this order shall be made by the petitioners to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Services, U.P. Lucknow as well as to the Principal Secretary, Medical Education and Training, U.P. Lucknow and the decision on the same shall be taken by the Principal Secretaries of the aforesaid departments in consultation with each other. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observations on the merits of the claims of the petitioners. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions". The benefits of the aforesaid judgment and order shall also be available to the petitioner as well. At this juncture, Ms. Ishita Yadu, representing the U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission has stated that the advertisement dated 21.06.2016 pursuant to which the petitioner has applied has been quashed by this court by means of judgment and order dated 19.08.2016, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 18077 (S/S) of 2016, Kesh Pal and others Vs. State of U.P. and others. Ishita Yadu, representing the U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission has stated that the advertisement dated 21.06.2016 pursuant to which the petitioner has applied has been quashed by this court by means of judgment and order dated 19.08.2016, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 18077 (S/S) of 2016, Kesh Pal and others Vs. State of U.P. and others. In the light of the aforesaid fact, it is provided that the benefits of the judgment and order passed by this Court on 08.08.2016 in Writ Petition No. 18374 (S/S) of 2016 shall be made available to the petitioner whenever the selections to the post in question is held. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.