ORDER : Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred seeking the following reliefs: "i. That the record of the case may be called for; ii. Respondents may kindly be directed to appoint the petitioners by including their names in the Select Lists Annex.6 issued for the post of Lab Assistant by taking into consideration the provisional Merit List Annex.5 with all consequential benefits; iii. Respondents may kindly be directed to appoint the petitioners to the post of Lab Assistant under the OBC category in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of 1965 with all consequential benefits and further the appointment may kindly be relate back to 11.12.2015 i.e. the date of issuance of appointment order to the other selected candidates; iv. In addition to above or in alternate, the Respondents may kindly be directed to issue the fresh merit/appointment list, after removing the ineligible candidates, for appointment on the post of "Laboratory Assistant" pursuant to advertisement dated 10.07.2013 after true compliance of the Judgment dated 19.09.2016 passed by Hon'ble High Court, Jaipur in the batch of petitions headed by one Ajju Khan v. State (S.B.C.W.P. 700/2016) and the orders Annex.8; v. any other appropriate order or directions, which is deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be also passed in favour of the humble petitioners; and vi. the petitioners may kindly be allowed the costs of writ petition." 2. Since petitioner No.2 has already been appointed, as informed by learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, in this writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioners has confined his argument qua petitioner No.1 only. However, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks the relief of consequential benefits to be granted to petitioner No.2 pursuant to his appointment. 3. The petitioner No.1 being eligible and qualified was functioning as Lab Technician in the Government Hospital, Nagaur since 09.09.2010. The experience certificate issued to that effect is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. 4. The respondents, vide advertisement dated 10.07.2013, have advertised 543 posts of Lab Assistants, to be appointed in accordance with the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965. 5. The experience certificate issued to that effect is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. 4. The respondents, vide advertisement dated 10.07.2013, have advertised 543 posts of Lab Assistants, to be appointed in accordance with the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965. 5. The aforementioned advertisement dated 10.07.2013 provided for the requisite qualification to be Secondary or its equivalent and Diploma/Certificate Course in Medical Lab Technician from a recognized Lab Technician Institute, or one year's experience in medical lab run by the State Government. 6. Admittedly, petitioner No.1 is qualified, as he has more than one year's experience in the medical lab run by the State Government. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner No.1 has pointed out from Annexure-5 that out of 814 posts of Lab Assistants, only 624 category-wise candidates have been found for appointment to the said post. 8. Learned counsel for petitioner No.1 states that petitioner No.1 has secured 34.82% marks, and is thus, entitled to be appointed in the OBC (Male) Category on the post of Lab Assistant. 9. Learned counsel for petitioner No.1 has further pointed out from Annexure-5, the cut off percentage, which is 28.74% marks for the particular category. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents has strongly refuted the aforesaid averments by pointing out that in the reply filed by the respondents, it has been categorically stated that the cut off marks for the OBC (Male) Category was 38.82% marks, whereas admittedly, petitioner No.1 has secured only 34.82% marks. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents has further pointed out that the select list is on record, and as per the select list, the last candidate is having the merit of 38.82% marks in OBC (Male) Category. 12. Learned counsel for petitioner No.1, at this stage, pointed out the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court in Dinesh Tripathi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9306/2016 decided on 04.09.2017), relevant portion of which reads as under:- "Hence, the present writ petition is allowed, the rejection of petitioner's candidature is quashed. The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent No.2- Additional Director (Administration) Medical & Health Services, Health Bhawan, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur on 19.09.2017, alongwith all his original documents, including mark-sheet of Secondary examination. The respondent No.2 thereafter shall examine the same and parse over as to whether the petitioner falls in the merit or not. The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent No.2- Additional Director (Administration) Medical & Health Services, Health Bhawan, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur on 19.09.2017, alongwith all his original documents, including mark-sheet of Secondary examination. The respondent No.2 thereafter shall examine the same and parse over as to whether the petitioner falls in the merit or not. If the petitioner is otherwise found eligible and meritorious, he shall be given appointment on the post of Lab Assistant on or before 31.10.2017. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to show his original mark-sheet of Secondary examination, his case/candidature shall not be considered. Needless to observe that the respondent No.2 shall not consider duplicate/certified copy of the mark-sheet of the petitioner." 13. Learned counsel for petitioner No.1 has also relied upon the precedent law laid down by this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench in Ajju Khan v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 700/2016 decided on 19.09.2016), relevant portion of which reads as under:- "The other judgment is in the case of Sishpal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.10125/2016, decided on 17.08.2016. It is in respect of the post of Livestock Assistant but issue involved therein was also in reference to the provisions of the Act of 1956. It has been held that a candidate cannot claim eligibility based on the diploma awarded by a deemed University. Therein, the judgment of this Court in bunch of writ petitions led by Lohade Ram Meena v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 226/2009 decided by the order dated 30th March, 2012 was applied. Therein, similar issue was decided by this Court. In the light of discussion made above, none of the arguments of learned counsel for petitioners can be accepted. The other issue is of experience of one year. I find that petitioners are not in possession of experience from an institution run by the State Government thus certificate towards experience issued by a private institution cannot be of their benefit. In view of above, writ petitions are dismissed. A copy of this order be placed in each connected file." 14. I find that petitioners are not in possession of experience from an institution run by the State Government thus certificate towards experience issued by a private institution cannot be of their benefit. In view of above, writ petitions are dismissed. A copy of this order be placed in each connected file." 14. In light of the aforementioned precedent law and the submissions made, the present writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the respondents that if they fill the remaining number of posts, the respondents shall consider the case of petitioner No.1 for appointment on his own merit. If petitioner No.1 is found eligible and meritorious and the list is operating further, then petitioner No.1 shall be given appointment on the post of Lab Assistant. Such consideration shall be made by the respondents within a period of 30 days from today, keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent law laid down in Ajju Khan v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra) as well as the availability of the posts and the intention of the respondents to the stage, until which, the merit list is to be operated. Further, since petitioner No.2 has already been appointed, therefore, for the relief regarding grant of notional benefits, petitioner No.2 shall make appropriate representation to the respondents, which shall be decided by the respondents strictly in accordance with law.