ORDER : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. 1. All these writ petitions were heard jointly as they all relate to a dispute, which has arisen in relation to posts of Lab Technician and Assistant Radiographer for which all the petitioners have applied under advertisement dated 12.06.2020. 2. Written submissions have been filed on behalf of the counsel for the petitioners as well as counsel for the respondents, which have been examined at length. 3. As per the advertisement dated 12.06.2020, in all 1119 posts of Lab Technician and 1058 posts of Assistant Radiographer were advertised. Initially, the last date for filling up the application form was laid down as 02.07.2020, however, by amendment; the last date for filling up the application form was fixed as 30.07.2020. As per the conditions laid down in the said advertisement, a candidate may apply for the post, however, the fact of the candidate having been registered with the Rajasthan Para Medical Council shall be examined at the stage of document verification and the candidate must provide the registration certificate at the time of document verification. 4. In the present bunch of writ petitions, the petitioners have come out with several grievances with regard to the action of the respondents, which has resulted in the petitioners being ousted from the participation for the posts of Lab Technician and Assistant Radiographer. Since all the writ petitions were heard together, but there are certain issues, which are required to be decided in regard to the pet2itions separately, therefore, different issues relating to separate set of writ petitions are being noticed hereinbelow: A. Candidates whose result of the qualifying examination is awaited. (SBCWP Nos. 6700/2020 and 6714/2020) B. Candidates who do not possess Science at the Senior Secondary Level, but have obtained Diploma in Medical Lab Technician. (SBCWP Nos. 6397/2020, 6772/2020, 7775/2020, 7787/2020, 7798/2020 and 8034/2020) C. Candidates who have secured one year diploma in Medical Lab Technician Course. (SBCWP Nos. 6644/2020, 7498/2020, 7768/2020 and 7892/2020) D. Candidates who submit that after revaluation result, they stand qualified, however, the date of revaluation was after last date of submission of the application form and also submit that revaluation should relate back to the date of declaration of the original result. (SBCWP Nos. 8908/2020, 6593/2020, 6614/2020, 6620/2020, 6624/2020, 7577/2020, 7634/2020, 7659/2020, 8115/2020, 8354/2020, 8812/2020, 9078/2020, 9092/2020, 9283/2020, 9588/2020, 10935/2020, 11071/2020, 11271/2020, 11601/2020 and 11689/2020). (SBCWP Nos. 8908/2020, 6593/2020, 6614/2020, 6620/2020, 6624/2020, 7577/2020, 7634/2020, 7659/2020, 8115/2020, 8354/2020, 8812/2020, 9078/2020, 9092/2020, 9283/2020, 9588/2020, 10935/2020, 11071/2020, 11271/2020, 11601/2020 and 11689/2020). (SBCWP No. 10955/2020 (reserved on 20.10.2020) E. The Rajasthan Para Medical Council is refusing the candidates who have obtained Diploma from Universities of Rajasthan, namely, NIMS. University, Singhania University, JRN Vidyapeeth (Deemed) University, Jaipur National University, Mahatma Gandhi University of Medical Sciences & Technology, Mahatma Jyoti Rao Phoole University, SMS. Medical College, and Madhav University. (SBCWP Nos. 18456/2018, 6413/2020, 6442/2020, 6446/2020, 6632/2020, 6638/2020, 6672/2020, 6677/2020, 6681/2020, 6687/2020, 6689/2020, 6708/2020, 6710/2020, 6712/2020, 6720/2020, 6766/2020, 6774/2020, 6881/2020, 6895/2020, 6941/2020, 7063/2020, 7070/2020, 7131/2020, 7142/2020, 7338/2020, 7348/2020, 7667/2020, 7793/2020, 7797/2020, 7799/2020, 7804/2020, 7813/2020, 7911/2020, 7942/2020, 7949/2020, 7951/2020, 7975/2020, 7993/2020, 7994/2020, 7995/2020, 8026/2020, 8132/2020, 8299/2020, 9078/2020, 9417/2020, 9795/2020, 10221/2020, 10455/2020, 10639/2020, 10944/2020, 10972/2020, 11035/2020 and 11925/2020) (SBCWP No. 12166/2020 (reserved on 16.10.2020). F. The Rajasthan Para Medical Council has refused to register the candidates who have obtained Diploma by Distance Education. (SBCWP Nos. 6380/2020, 6382/2020, 6388/2020, 6396/2020, 6398/2020, 6414/2020, 6643/2020, 6680/2020, 6683/2020, 6688/2020, 6896/2020, 7133/2020, 7150/2020, 7174/2020, 7270/2020, 7271/2020, 7272/2020, 7273/2020, 7335/2020, 7341/2020, 7365/2020, 7433/2020, 7435/2020, 7580/2020, 7584/2020, 7615/2020, 7616/2020, 7673/2020, 7723/2020, 7789/2020, 8014/2020, 8235/2020, 10579/2020 and 10781/2020). G. The candidates who have obtained the Diploma from other Universities outside the State and have been refused registration by the Rajasthan Para Medical Council. (SBCWP Nos. 7646/2020, 7944/2020, 8369/2020, 9761/2020, 9797/2020, 9828/2020, 9945/2020, 10197/2020, 10361/2020, 10410/2020, 10468/2020, 10471/2020, 10586/2020, 10588/2020, 10608/2020, 10637/2020, 10662/2020, 10678/2020, 10820/2020, 10860/2020, 10866/2020, 10894/2020, 10900/2020, 10901/2020, 10902/2020, 10903/2020, 10904/2020, 10905/2020, 10906/2020, 10928/2020 and 10942/2020). (SBCWP No. 12494/2020 (reserved on 16.10.2020), SBCWP No. 11472/2020 (reserved on 19.10.2020), SBCWP No. 10948/2020 (reserved on 20.10.2020), SBCWP No. 11216/2020 (reserved on 21.10.2020) H. Candidates who are registered with the Rajasthan Para Medical Council after 30.07.2020 have been held ineligible on account of the order issued on 21.09.2020. (SBCWP No. 11502/2020-order was recalled suo motu & reserved on 22.10.2020) 5. Accordingly, the aforesaid issues are being decided as under:- 5.1 ISSUE NO. A-Candidates whose result of the qualifying examination is awaited. 5.2 The question with regard to the eligibility as on the cut-off date was examined by the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors. (SBCWP No. 11502/2020-order was recalled suo motu & reserved on 22.10.2020) 5. Accordingly, the aforesaid issues are being decided as under:- 5.1 ISSUE NO. A-Candidates whose result of the qualifying examination is awaited. 5.2 The question with regard to the eligibility as on the cut-off date was examined by the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors. Versus Chander Shekhar & Anr., reported in (1997) 4 SCC 18 , the three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court finally settled the law while hearing the review petitions with regard to the question as to when a person shall be treated to be eligible and qualified for the purpose of selection. In the review petitions, following questions were framed: "(1) Whether the view taken by the majority (Hon'ble Thommen & V. Ramaswami, JJ) that it is enough for a candidate to be qualified by the date of interview even if he was not qualified by the lasts date prescribed for receiving the applications, is correct in law and whether the majority was right in extending the principle of Rule 37 of the public Service Commission Rules to the present case by analogy? (2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, would it not be just to restore the direction of the Division Bench with respect to the inter se seniority between the two sets of candidates, namely those who were qualified as on the last date for receiving applications and those who were not so qualified. In other words, the question is whether the direction of the Division Bench to treat the candidates who were not qualified by the lasts date of receipt of applications as juniors, as a class, to those who were qualified, was not a just one?" 5.3 The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case further held as under: "6. The Review petitions came up for final hearing on March 3, 1997. We heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners, for the State of Jammu and Kashmir and for the 33 respondent So far as the first issue referred to in our order dated Ist September, 1995 is concerned, we are of the respectful opinion that majority judgment (rendered by the Dr. T.K. Thommen and V. Ramaswami, JJ) is unsustainable in law,. T.K. Thommen and V. Ramaswami, JJ) is unsustainable in law,. the proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for fling the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well-established one. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also have applied. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their application ought to have been rejected at the inception itself. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed in the majority Judgment. This is also the proposition affirmed in Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt.) v. University of Rajasthan and others [1993 Suppl. (3) S.C.C. 168]. The reasoning in majority opinion that by allowing the 33 respondents to appear for the interview, the Recruiting Authority was able to get the bests talent available and that such course was in furtherance of public interest is, with respect, an impermissible Justification It is, in our considered opinion, a clear error of low and an error apparent on the face of the record. In our opinion, R.M. Sahai, J. (and the Division Bench of the High Court) was right in holding that the 33 respondents could not have allowed to appear for interview." 5.4 Thus, the general rule is that the cut off date is sacrosanct and cannot be deviated. In our opinion, R.M. Sahai, J. (and the Division Bench of the High Court) was right in holding that the 33 respondents could not have allowed to appear for interview." 5.4 Thus, the general rule is that the cut off date is sacrosanct and cannot be deviated. 5.5 The said aspect has been incorporated by making a general amendment in all the Service Rules by the Rajasthan Various Service (Amendment) Rules, 1999 in the State Government, which reads as under: "Provided that the person who has appeared or is appearing in the final year examination of the course which is the requisite educational qualification for the post as mentioned in the rules or schedule for direct recruitment, shall be eligible to apply for the post but he/she shall have to submit proof of having acquired the requisite educational qualification to the appropriate selection agency:- (i) before appearing in the main examination, where selection is made through two stages of written examination and interview; (ii) before appearing in interview where selection is made through written examination and interview; (iii) before appearing in the written examination or interview where selection is made through only written examination or only interview, as the case may be." 5.6 From the above, it is settled that a candidate applies under an advertisement where the selection process is by way of written examination as well as interview and if no last date has been mentioned, the person's qualification shall be examined as on the date of interview. In other words, he is required to possess the required qualification on the date of interview. 5.7 However, if the selection process is based solely on the written examination, then the qualification of the candidate shall be examined as on the last date of written examination. 5.8 However, the employer can also lay down a cut-off date in the advertisement itself and mention that the qualification shall be examined as on the last date of submission of the application form. 5.9 Admittedly, the petitioners' result of qualifying exam has not been declared before the cut-off date. In view of Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra), such candidates would not therefore be entitled to participate in the selection process as they do not fulfill the minimum educational qualification on the cut-off date as fixed in the advertisement. None of the petitioners have challenged the conditions laid down under the advertisement. In view of Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra), such candidates would not therefore be entitled to participate in the selection process as they do not fulfill the minimum educational qualification on the cut-off date as fixed in the advertisement. None of the petitioners have challenged the conditions laid down under the advertisement. 5.10 In view thereof, the writ petitions are found to be without merit and the same are accordingly dismissed. 6. ISSUE NO. B-Candidates who do not possess Science at the Senior Secondary Level, but have obtained Diploma in Medical Lab Technician. 6.1. The posts of Lab Technician and Assistant Radiographer fall under the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1965") and the qualifications for the said posts were amended by amendment of Schedule-I to the Rules of 1965 vide notification dated 30.08.2013 and as per the said notification, the post of Assistant Radiographer, which falls in Group A.V. Para Medical Cadre (Medical), is 100% direct recruitment post. 6.2. The post of Assistant Radiographer requires the eligibility qualification as to possess Senior Secondary in Science with either Biology or Mathematics or its equivalent with Radiography Course. The eligibility criteria reads as under: 1. Assistant Radiographer 100% 1. Senior Secondary in Science with either Biology or Mathematics or its equivalent with Radiography Course passed from an Institute recognized by the State Government, Central Government, Rajasthan Para Medical Council and 2. Registered in Rajasthan Para Medical Council 6.3. Similarly, the post of Lab Technician falls in Group A VI Para Medical Cadre (Medical) and is to be filled 85% by direct recruitment and 15% by promotion. For deciding the present controversy, which relates to direct recruitment, suffice it to note that the eligibility criteria for direct recruitment has been laid down as under: 1. Lab Technician 85% 15% 1. Senior Secondary in Science with either Biology or Mathematics or its equivalent with diploma in Medical Lab Technician from an Institute recognized by the State Government, Central Government/Rajasthan Para Medical Council and 2. Registered in Rajasthan Para Medical Council 6.4. As per the qualification laid down in the Schedule for direct recruitment for the posts of Assistant Radiographer and Lab Technician and quoted hereinabove. Registered in Rajasthan Para Medical Council 6.4. As per the qualification laid down in the Schedule for direct recruitment for the posts of Assistant Radiographer and Lab Technician and quoted hereinabove. Keeping in view the minimum qualification required under the Rules of 1965 as amended vide notification dated 30.08.2013 as quoted above, the petitioners are found to be lacking the minimum qualification for the post and therefore, merely because, they have passed Diploma in Lab Technician Course, they cannot be treated to be eligible. 6.5. The writ petitions are thus found to be devoid of merit and the same are accordingly dismissed. 7. ISSUE NO. C-Candidates who have secured one year diploma in Medical Lab Technician Course. 7.1. For the purpose of registration with the Rajasthan Para Medical Council, the Rajasthan Para Medical Council Regulations, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations of 2014") hold the field. As per Regulation 41, the courses and syllabus, which have been recognized for the purpose of registration, have been laid down as under: "[41. Courses and Syllabus.-(1) The Council may allow the recognized institutions to run the courses specified in table given below. The Council may include more courses with the prior permission of the State Government.] S.No. Name of Course Duration Eligibility 1. Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology 2 Years 10 + 2 (Science subject) 2. Diploma in Radiation Technology 2 Years 10+2 (Science subject) 3. Diploma in Dental Mechanic Technology 2 Years 10+2 (Science subject) 4. Diploma in Dental Hygiene Technology 2 Years 10+2 (Science subject) 5. Diploma in Operation Theater Technology 2 Years 10+2 (Science subject) 6. Diploma in Dialysis Technology 2 Years 10+2 (Science subject) 7. Diploma in Orthopedic Technology 2 Years 10+2 (Science subject) 8. Diploma in ECG Technology 2 Years 10+2 (Science subject) 9. Diploma in Blood Bank Technology 2 Years 10+2 (Science subject) 10. Diploma in Endoscopy Technology 2 Years 10+2 (Science subject) 11. Diploma in EEG Technology 2 Years 10+2 (Science subject) 12. Diploma in Cath Lab Technology 2 Years 10+2 (Science subject) 13. Diploma in Emergency and Trauma Care Technology 2 Years 10+2 (Science subject) 14. Diploma in Opthalmic Technology 2 Years 10+2 (Science subject) 15. Diploma in Perfusion Technology 2 Years 10+2 (Science subject) (2) The syllabus for the Diploma Courses mentioned in sub-regulation (1) above, shall be as specified in Schedule-1 to Schedule-15. Diploma in Emergency and Trauma Care Technology 2 Years 10+2 (Science subject) 14. Diploma in Opthalmic Technology 2 Years 10+2 (Science subject) 15. Diploma in Perfusion Technology 2 Years 10+2 (Science subject) (2) The syllabus for the Diploma Courses mentioned in sub-regulation (1) above, shall be as specified in Schedule-1 to Schedule-15. (3) The Council may, at any time, amend or modify syllabus of any course. Such amended or modified syllabus shall be effective from the next session of the course." 7.2. From the above, it is apparent that one year diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology has not been recognized for the purpose of registration. None of the petitioners have challenged Regulation 41 of the Regulations of 2014 nor any counsel has put up arguments in this regard. In view thereof, since there is no provision for recognizing one year diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology Course for the purpose of registration with the Rajasthan Para Medical Council, the candidates, who have secured such diploma, cannot be treated to be eligible for the posts of Lab Technician and Assistant Radiographer as advertised under the advertisement dated 12.06.2020. Their writ petitions deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. 8. ISSUE NO. D-Candidates who submit that after revaluation result, they stand qualified, however, the date of revaluation was after last date of submission of the application form and also submit that revaluation should relate back to the date of declaration of the original result. 8.1. In Jenany J.R. Versus S. Rajeevan & Ors., reported in (2010) 5 SCC 798 , the Apex Court was examining the question as to the crucial date, which should be considered for the candidate to possess requisite qualifications for the purpose of promotion and it was held as under: "12. As has been mentioned hereinabove, the only question which is required to be considered by us in this appeal is whether on the date, vacancy had occurred i.e. on 1.7.2003, respondent No. 1 was having requisite qualification or not to be appointed on the post of H.S.A. (Hindi). 13. It is not disputed that respondent No. 1 was not qualified to be promoted as H.S.A on the date when the vacancy arose. It was conceded before learned Single Judge that in July, 2003, when the results of the examination were published, he had failed. However, he had applied for re-evaluation. 13. It is not disputed that respondent No. 1 was not qualified to be promoted as H.S.A on the date when the vacancy arose. It was conceded before learned Single Judge that in July, 2003, when the results of the examination were published, he had failed. However, he had applied for re-evaluation. Only after re-evaluation was done, he was declared pass in September, 2003 as per the communication sent to him by Secretary, Board of Public Examinations. Thus, there was no dispute that on 1.7.2003, when the vacancy arose, admittedly, respondent No. 1 was not duly qualified to be appointed as H.S.A. (Hindi) as contemplated under Note 2 appended to Rule 43 of the Rules. This aspect of the matter has been dealt with by learned Single Judge in detail in para 5 of the judgment." 8.2. Thus, the said candidate-respondent No. 1 though had passed the qualifying examination after declaration of his result upon revaluation, the Apex Court did not accept that he was eligible on the date when the vacancy arose and thus, did not accept the relate back theory to treat him as eligible on the crucial date. 8.3. The question regarding relate back of revaluation result was examined by this Court in Jitendra Kumar Shrotriya Versus Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1738/2012 & other connected petitions decided on 26.02.2014 and it was held that revaluation result cannot relate back to the date prior to cut-off date. 8.4. The petitioners in these writ petitions have submitted that result of revaluation was declared by the respondents on 31.07.2020 whereby they have been declared passed in Part-II Examination. The cut-off date fixed by the appointing authority was, however, 30.07.2020 and therefore, the petitioners could not fill online application form as they have not passed Part-II Examination of Diploma in DMLT upto 30.07.2020. 8.5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the revaluation result should relate back to the original declaration of Part-II Examination result and it cannot be considered as a fault of the candidates and therefore, the petitioners having become eligible, should be allowed to fill up their form offline treating them eligible as on 30.07.2020 and by interim order, this Court also passed the direction to allow them to fill up their online form, however, the same was provisional and subject to the decision of the case. 8.6. 8.6. Reply has been filed and the respondents have objected the same stating that the petitioners are ineligible on the cut-off date, which is sacrosanct. Merely because, revaluation result has come later on, it will not make them eligible as on cut-off date and revaluation result cannot relate back. 8.7. In view of the law, as noticed above, in Jitendra Kumar Shrotriya (supra) and Jenany J.R. (supra), this Court is of the firm view that the petitioners' candidature cannot be said to have acquired eligibility post facto upon declaration of result of revaluation. The result of revaluation cannot relate back to the date when the original result was declared as such a view would not only to go contrary to the view taken by the Apex Court in Jenany J.R. (supra), but examine from other angle also, such a view would be unjustified: a situation is possible that revaluation result is declared of a candidate after a period of six months and in the meanwhile, entire selection process is over, therefore, can it be said that such revaluation result will make an ineligible candidate eligible and the entire selection process should be conducted individually for him? The answer is 'No'. The law as laid down by court must meet all contingencies and circumstances. 8.8. Although in the present case, result of revaluation was declared on the next day after the cut-off date, treating him eligible would be too dangerous a proposition of law and would unsettle the settled position that a person's candidature must be examined only on the cut-off date. In view thereof, all these writ petitions fail and the same are accordingly dismissed. 9. ISSUE NO. E-The Rajasthan Para Medical Council is refusing the candidates who have obtained Diploma from Universities of Rajasthan, namely, NIMS. University, Singhania University, JRN Vidyapeeth (Deemed) University, Jaipur National University, Mahatma Gandhi University of Medical Sciences & Technology, Mahatma Jyoti Rao Phoole University, SMS. Medical College, and Madhav University. 9.1. With regard to the registration with the Rajasthan Para Medical Council, it is noticed that there have been a protected litigation before this Court in relation to the Courses being conducted by the various Universities and its recognition by the Rajasthan Para Medical Council. Medical College, and Madhav University. 9.1. With regard to the registration with the Rajasthan Para Medical Council, it is noticed that there have been a protected litigation before this Court in relation to the Courses being conducted by the various Universities and its recognition by the Rajasthan Para Medical Council. A Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in Rajasthan Nursing Council Versus Singhania University, DBSAW No. 671/2018 decided on 25.5.2018 while dismissing the appeal of the Rajasthan Nursing Council observed as under: "After hearing learned counsel for the parties, first of all it is required to be observed that in the grounds of the writ petition no other ground has been taken by the appellant except the ground which is incorporated and mentioned above. The only argument and ground taken in the appeal is that registration is required from appellant RNC by the Singhania University, which is established by law. We have considered the rival submissions and come to the conclusion that once the controversy has already been adjudicated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. B.L. Asawa Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in AIR 1982 SC 933 and in case of Mrs. Madhu Santosh Vs. State of Rajasthan (SBCWP NO. 2502/1989), decided on 21.2.1991 while relying upon the aforesaid judgment then there is no question to hold that any error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in directing the appellant RNC so as to deny the registration on the pretext that recognition is necessary from the appellant Rajasthan Nursing Council. We are of the firmed opinion that if any University is established by law and imparting the course in the form of diploma and degree or qualification, that cannot be questioned by the appellant RNC for the purpose of registration. We have considered the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Gand Mal Dhaker & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (DBSAW No. 955/2011), decided on 17.2.2017 in which question of appointment and qualification was involved and hear the controversy is only with regard to registration, therefore, the judgment rendered in aforesaid case not applicable in the present case. Vs. State of Rajasthan (DBSAW No. 955/2011), decided on 17.2.2017 in which question of appointment and qualification was involved and hear the controversy is only with regard to registration, therefore, the judgment rendered in aforesaid case not applicable in the present case. In our opinion no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge so as to allow the writ petition filed by the respondents while following the adjudication made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Dr. B.L. Asawa (Supra) which is subsequently followed by this court in the case of Mrs. Madhu Santosh (supra). Consequently, the instant special appeal is hereby dismissed." 9.2. In another DBSAW No. 629/2018 titled as Rajasthan Para Medical Council Versus Hitesh Kumar Sharma & Ors., the Division Bench of this Court, at Principal Seat, Jodhpur following the aforesaid judgment gave its verdict on 25.05.2018 as under: "After considering the judgment and the fact that the respondents petitioners acquired qualification from the University established by law, therefore, no further recognition was required. Therefore, in our opinion, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge so as to issue direction to the Rajasthan Para Medical Council to register the respondents-petitioners in the writ petition filed by the respondents while following the adjudication made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of B.L. Asawa Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. reported in AIR 1982 SC 933 and in case of Mr. Madhu Santosh Vs. State of Rajasthan (SBCWP No. 2502/1989), decided on 21.2.1992 and decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Ms. Neelam Devi & Anr. Vs. Haryana Nurses Registration Council & Ors. (Civil Writ petition No. 4021/2009), decided on 19.2.2010 reported in 2010 (158) PLR 323. Consequently, there is no force in this appeal filed by the Rajasthan Para Medical Council, Jaipur. Hence, this special appeal is hereby dismissed." 9.3. In this regard, the plea taken by the State Government requires to be noted. It is the submission of the counsel for the State that so far as selection for the posts of Assistant Radiographer and Lab Technician is concerned, the qualifications required are in terms of the amended Schedule issued vide notification dated 30.08.2013. In this regard, the plea taken by the State Government requires to be noted. It is the submission of the counsel for the State that so far as selection for the posts of Assistant Radiographer and Lab Technician is concerned, the qualifications required are in terms of the amended Schedule issued vide notification dated 30.08.2013. It is his submission that even though the Para Medical Council may register the candidates now, it should not in any manner affect the selection where the document verification date is already over i.e. 14.10.2020 as per the notification dated 21.09.2020. The date of document verification has not been extended thereafter and hence, the petitioners even if they are registered now with the Rajasthan Para Medical Council and their contention is accepted that they are entitled for being registered, then too, they cannot be treated as eligible for the purpose of selection process and they must wait for next selection, which may be conducted by the State Government in future. 9.4. On the other hand, the respective counsels, who have appeared for the petitioners have vehemently submitted that the action of the Rajasthan Para Medical Council in not registering them or rejecting their candidature was wholly unjustified. On account of fault of the Rajasthan Para Medical Council, the petitioners ought not to be deprived of their rightful claim for the post, if they are otherwise found to be meritorious and falling in the merit. 9.5. With regard to NIMS. University, it has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of NIMS. University Versus Rajasthan Para Medical Council: SBCWP No. 364/2017 decided on 03.05.2019 has categorically held as under: "23. As the respondent-council explicitly stated that the petitioner-university was accorded recognition for the said subject vide communication dated 24th November, 2015, for onward courses and it has established that the respondent-council came into existence after passing of the Rajasthan Para Medical Council Act, 2008, in the year 2008, although the Rajasthan Para Medical Council and started functioning in the year 2014. Thus, indisputably the petitioner-university was already running the course prior to functioning of the respondent-council, with approval of the UGC. Therefore, the respondent-council cannot question and/or reject the recognition on the plea of prior approval for the respondent-council was not even functioning prior to the year 2014. Thus, indisputably the petitioner-university was already running the course prior to functioning of the respondent-council, with approval of the UGC. Therefore, the respondent-council cannot question and/or reject the recognition on the plea of prior approval for the respondent-council was not even functioning prior to the year 2014. At this juncture it will be profitable to take note of the text of regulation 42 of the Rajasthan Para-Medical Council Regulations, 2014, providing the criteria for registration, which reads thus: Eligibility for registration.-The following persons shall be eligible for registration,- (i) who has obtained certificate of a Para-medical course from any Government body or private body permitted by the Government for the purpose who has run the course and awarded certificate before the commencement of these regulations. (ii) who has passed the Para-medical course from any institution recognized by the Rajasthan Para-medical Council. (iii) who has passed the Para-medical course from any institution/Government body, outside the territories of Rajasthan, recognized for the purpose by the concerned State Government or Central Government. (iv) who has passed the Para-medical course from any institution, outside the territories of India, recognized for the purpose by the Government of the country concerned and verified by Government of India. 24. A glance of Regulation 42 (i), would reflect that one who has obtained a certificate of a Para-medical course from any Government body or private body permitted by the Government for the purpose to run the course and awarded certificate before the commencement of these regulations is eligible and entitled for registration. The fact that the petitioner-university had prior approval of the UGC, which is a Government body, is not in dispute. Thus, it had the authority to run the said course. Hence, the resistance of the respondent-council on the plea of prior approval from the State Authority, without any factual foundation. 25. Although the prior approval from the State Government is not required in light of the settled law by the Apex Court of the land, still the permission was obtained by the petitioner-university. Thus, the respondent-council cannot restrict recognition of the courses run by the petitioner-university, prior to functioning of the respondent-council. 26. For the reasons and discussions aforesaid and in view of the singular factual matrix of the case at hand; the writ petition of the petitioner-university succeeds, and is, hereby allowed." 9.6. Thus, the respondent-council cannot restrict recognition of the courses run by the petitioner-university, prior to functioning of the respondent-council. 26. For the reasons and discussions aforesaid and in view of the singular factual matrix of the case at hand; the writ petition of the petitioner-university succeeds, and is, hereby allowed." 9.6. Learned counsel has also submitted that view taken by the Coordinate Bench was based on the judgment passed in Dr. B.L. Asawa Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in (1982) 2 SCC 55 wherein it was held as under: "11. The University of Bihar at Muzaffarpur is one duly established by statute and it is fully competent to conduct examinations and award degrees. The Degree of Doctor of Medicine (Forensic Medicine)-M.D. (Forensic Medicine)-of the University of Bihar is included in the Schedule to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 as a degree fully recognised by the Indian Medical Council which is the paramount professional body set up by statute with authority to recognise the medical qualifications granted by any University or Medical Institution in India. A Post-graduate Medical Degree granted by a University duly established by statute in this country and which has also been recognised by the Indian Medical Council by inclusion to the Schedule of the Medical Council Act has ipso facto to be regarded, accepted and treated as valid throughout our country. In the absence of any express provision to the contrary, such a degree does not require to be specifically recognised by other Universities in any State in India before it can be accepted as a valid qualification for the purpose of appointment to any post in such a State. The Division Bench of the High Court was, in our opinion, manifestly in error in thinking that since the Post-graduate degree possessed by the appellant was not one obtained from the University of Rajasthan, it could not be treated as a valid qualification for the purpose of recruitment in question in the absence of any specific order by the University of Rajasthan recognising the said degree or declaring it as an equivalent qualification. It is common ground before us that the University of Rajasthan does not conduct Postgraduate examinations in the subject of Forensic Medicine and it does not award the degree of M.L. (Forensic Medicine). It is common ground before us that the University of Rajasthan does not conduct Postgraduate examinations in the subject of Forensic Medicine and it does not award the degree of M.L. (Forensic Medicine). In order that there should be scope for declaration of 'equivalence' of a qualification obtained from another body, there should be a corresponding qualification that can be earned by virtue of passing an examination or test conducted by the concerned University. There can be declaration of equivalence only as between a degree etc. awarded by the concerned University and one obtained from a body different from the concerned University. When the University of Rajasthan does not conduct any examination for the award of the degree of M.L. (Forensic Medicine), there cannot be any question of declaration of 'equivalence' in respect of such a degree awarded by any University. Unfortunately, the State Public Service Commission as well as the Division Bench of the High Court failed to notice this crucial aspect. We may also point out that the declaration of 'equivalence' referred to in Section 23A of the Rajasthan University Act as well as in Clause (vii) of Ordinance No. 65 of the Rajasthan University Ordinances can only be in respect of qualifications other than basic or Post-graduate degrees awarded by other statutory Indian Universities in the concerned subjects. In the case of a Post-graduate degree in the concerned subject awarded by a statutory Indian University, no recognition or declaration of equivalence by any other University is called for. This is all the more so in the case of a medical degree-basic as well as Postgraduate-that is awarded by a statutory Indian University and which has been specifically recognised by the Indian Medical Council." 9.7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Rajasthan Para Medical Council has submitted that there are two set of candidates who have done course from NIMS. University. One set of candidates are those who have done the course from the University itself and there are other set of candidates who have done the course through Distance Education. Learned counsel submits that so far as those candidates who have done course from the University can be governed by the aforesaid judgment and the Rajasthan Para Medical Council has duly recognized the courses conducted by NIMS. Learned counsel submits that so far as those candidates who have done course from the University can be governed by the aforesaid judgment and the Rajasthan Para Medical Council has duly recognized the courses conducted by NIMS. University after 2015 and would therefore be entitled to get registration, however, those candidates who have done Para Medical Course prior to 2015 i.e. 2014 or earlier, cannot be treated as eligible for registration and relies on the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kuldeep Shukla Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors., SBCWP No. 10826/2008 and bunch of writ petitions decided on 30.5.2011 wherein it was held as under: "17) Conclusion that emanates from the discussion made above is that qualification possessed by the petitioners cannot be held to be recognized by the State Government or the Paramedical Council for employment under the Government of Rajasthan. Although, for that reason they may not be always ineligible for such appointment. However that confusion should not persist forever and this state of uncertainty must come to end. In order therefore to resolve the controversy for once and all, the State Government is directed to constitute the Paramedical Council as per Section 4 supra within a period of three months from the date copy of this order is produced before it. Matter with regard to recognition or otherwise of the qualifications held by the petitioners in the State of Rajasthan, shall be laid before the Paramedical Council, which in terms of Section 32 of the Rajasthan Para-Medical Council Act, 2008 shall take a decision thereabout within three months next after its constitution. If eventually, qualification possessed by the petitioners is recognized by the Paramedical Council, that recognition shall hold the field prospectively." 9.8. Those candidates who have passed regular course from NIMS. University even prior to 2014 shall be treated to be eligible as the law in this regard has been settled by the Coordinate Bench in the case of NIMS. University (supra) and also in view of the law laid down in Singhania University (supra) and Hitesh Kumar Sharma (supra). Those candidates who have passed regular course from NIMS. University even prior to 2014 shall be treated to be eligible as the law in this regard has been settled by the Coordinate Bench in the case of NIMS. University (supra) and also in view of the law laid down in Singhania University (supra) and Hitesh Kumar Sharma (supra). As the Para Medical Council in its reply has admitted that they have recognized the course from 2015, all the candidates who have passed the examination have passed the diploma after 2015 are required to be duly registered with the Rajasthan Para Medical Council and accordingly, directions are issued to the Rajasthan Para Medical Council to register all the candidates who possess Diploma and who have done regular courses from NIMS. University and other Universities within the State of Rajasthan. The Registration Certificate to such candidates shall be issued within a period of 15 days henceforth. 9.9. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petitions of such petitioners are allowed. 10. ISSUE NO. F-The Rajasthan Para Medical Council has refused to register the candidates who have obtained Diploma by Distance Education. 10.1. The question with regard to the Distance Education Course being conducted, the Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited Versus Rabi Sankar Patro & Ors., reported in (2018) 1 SCC 468 , was examining the Distance Education Course Guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC) for off-campus distance education with respect to the Engineering Courses being conducted by the various Universities apart from Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) and it was held that such courses principally cannot be conducted, however, all the candidates, who had cleared the said courses between period 2001 to 2005, were asked to give an option to appear for an examination to be conducted by the AICTE for the said purpose and if they cleared the test within the stipulated time, the benefits of having obtained Engineering Degree Course would stand revived. Further observations were made in relation to other course too. Thereafter, in 2010, the UGC had framed UGC (Institutions Deemed to be University) Regulations (the 2010 Deemed Universities Regulations) wherein Regulation 18.0 provided as under: "18.0. Distance education-No institution deemed to be university, so declared by the Central Government subsequent to these Regulations, shall be allowed to conduct courses in the distance mode. Thereafter, in 2010, the UGC had framed UGC (Institutions Deemed to be University) Regulations (the 2010 Deemed Universities Regulations) wherein Regulation 18.0 provided as under: "18.0. Distance education-No institution deemed to be university, so declared by the Central Government subsequent to these Regulations, shall be allowed to conduct courses in the distance mode. Also such institutions declared as such, prior to these Regulations, shall not be allowed to conduct courses in the distance mode from any of its off-campus centre/off-shore campus approved subsequent to these Regulations." 10.2. After examining the aforesaid provisions, the Supreme Court held as under: "48. Technical education leading to the award of degrees in Engineering consists of imparting of lessons in theory as well as practicals. The practicals form the backbone of such education which is hands-on approach involving actual application of principles taught in theory under the watchful eyes of Demonstrators or Lecturers. Face to face imparting of knowledge in theory classes is to be reinforced in practical classes. The practicals, thus, constitute an integral part of the technical education system. If this established concept of imparting technical education as a qualitative norm is to be modified or altered and in a given case to be substituted by distance education learning, then as a concept the AICTE ought to have accepted it in clear terms. What parameters ought to be satisfied if the regular course of imparting technical education is in any way to be modified or altered, is for AICTE alone to decide. The decision must be specific and unequivocal and cannot be inferred merely because of absence of any Guidelines in the matter. No such decision was ever expressed by AICTE. On the other hand, it has always maintained that courses leading to degrees in Engineering cannot be undertaken through distance education mode. Whether that approach is correct or not is not the point in issue. For the present purposes, if according to AICTE such courses ought not to be taught in distance education mode, that is the final word and is binding-unless rectified in a manner known to law. Whether that approach is correct or not is not the point in issue. For the present purposes, if according to AICTE such courses ought not to be taught in distance education mode, that is the final word and is binding-unless rectified in a manner known to law. Even National Policy on Education while emphasizing the need to have a flexible, pattern and programmes through distance education learning in technical and managerial education, laid down in Para 6.19 that AICTE will be responsible for planning, formulation and maintenance of norms and standards including maintenance of parity of certification and ensuring coordinated and integrated development of technical and management education. In our view whether subjects leading to degrees in Engineering, could be taught in distance education mode or not is within the exclusive domain of the AICTE. The answer to the first limb of the first question posed by us is therefore clear that without the Guidelines having been issued in that behalf by AICTE expressly permitting degree courses in Engineering through distance education mode, the Deemed to be Universities were not justified in introducing such courses." 10.3. The other question in the aforesaid case was with regard to AICTE Regulations, which provided that "no courses or programmes shall be introduced by any technical institution, university including a deemed university or university department or college except with the approval of the Council". The said provision was declared to be bad in law by the Supreme Court in the case of Bharathidasan University Versus AICTE, reported in (2001) 8 SCC 676 in relation to Universities, which are duly recognized by the UGC and it was held that prior approval for introducing any course or programme was not required. However, the Supreme Court in this case viz. Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited (supra) did not approve the action of the Distance Education Council allowing deemed Universities to start such courses and it was held as under: "66.11. We restrain all deemed to be Universities to carry on any courses in distance education mode from the Academic Session 2018-2019 onwards unless and until it is permissible to conduct such courses in distance education mode and specific permissions are granted by the concerned statutory/regulatory authorities in respect of each of those courses and unless the off-campus Centres/Study Centres are individually inspected and found adequate by the concerned Statutory Authorities. The approvals have to be course specific." 10.4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per Para 15(6) of the advertisement dated 12.06.2020 those candidates who have done professional course through distance mode cannot be treated as eligible for appointment. Learned counsel submits that AICTE's letter dated 05.09.2012 reflects that such courses were recognized by them although it did not have authority to grant such recognition for Para Medical Course. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that they have challenged condition No. 15(6) of the advertisement dated 12.06.2020, which declares the candidates ineligible who have done their professional course through distance mode. The Government of Rajasthan vide its letter dated 18.10.2012 had recognized degree diploma awarded by the Open Universities. It is further submitted that All India Council of Technical Education, which was holding the field at the relevant time had approved the programme through the distance mode and a letter was sent to the Vice-Chancellor of NIMS. University for approving their Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology, hence, the students who have cleared the examination and diploma prior to 2015 ought to be treated as having done a duly approved diploma in DMLT and they are entitled for registration. 10.5. This court finds while the Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited (supra) has disapproved the action of the AICTE in allowing the distance mode education in technical courses, it allowed the candidates who had passed the examination between 2001 to 2005 to appear for an examination, which may be conducted by the AICTE. 10.6. Keeping in view the aforesaid aspect, this Court is of the firm view that those candidates who have done Diploma in Medical Lab Technology by distance education mode cannot be treated at the moment to be eligible for appointment on the posts under the advertisement dated 12.06.2020. The qualification acquired by them shall be treated as suspended. However, the Rajasthan Para Medical Council is directed to device a framework for conducting examination for all those candidates who have acquired Diploma in Medical Lab Technology prior to 2015 by distance education mode and seek option from all the candidates to appear for an examination, which shall be conducted by them. However, the Rajasthan Para Medical Council is directed to device a framework for conducting examination for all those candidates who have acquired Diploma in Medical Lab Technology prior to 2015 by distance education mode and seek option from all the candidates to appear for an examination, which shall be conducted by them. If such students submit their option for appearing in the examination and pass the examination, their qualification acquired through distance education mode shall stand revived and they would be treated as eligible for future selection process. 10.7. In view of what has been held above, condition No. 15(6) of the advertisement dated 12.06.2020 is also found to be justified and the candidates who have passed the course by distance education mode shall be treated as ineligible for appointment. The writ petitions of such petitioners are accordingly dismissed. 11. ISSUE NO. G-The candidates who have obtained the Diploma from other Universities outside the State and have been refused registration by the Rajasthan Para Medical Council. 11.1. So far as issue No. G is concerned, namely, refusal of the Rajasthan Para Medical Council to register/rejection of candidature of persons who have done diploma course from other States is concerned, it is noticed that the Rajasthan Para Medical Council has been found under the Rajasthan Para Medical Council Act, 2008, which governs the Para Medical Courses and Para Medical Services in the Rajasthan. Thus, even if, a person may have done Para Medical Course from any University in any other State, as per the Schedule to the Rules of 1965 as amended in 2013, a person is required to be registered with the Rajasthan Para Medical Council and then alone he/she is eligible. 11.2. None of the counsels for the petitioners have argued with regard to challenge to the eligibility criteria laid down under the Schedule to the Rules of 1965, which only allows registration with the Rajasthan Para Medical Council. Hence, this court would not deal with it in the present petitions. It is, therefore, held that only after having been registered with the Rajasthan Para Medical Council, which I am told follows the procedure of receiving NOC from other States before registering a candidate, can a candidate be treated as eligible. Accordingly, the writ petitions are partly allowed. 12. ISSUE NO. It is, therefore, held that only after having been registered with the Rajasthan Para Medical Council, which I am told follows the procedure of receiving NOC from other States before registering a candidate, can a candidate be treated as eligible. Accordingly, the writ petitions are partly allowed. 12. ISSUE NO. H-Candidates who are registered with the Rajasthan Para Medical Council after 30.07.2020 have been held ineligible on account of the order issued on 21.09.2020. 12.1. In K. Manjusree Versus State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., reported in (2008) 3 SCC 512 , the Supreme Court held that the rule of game cannot be changed. In K. Manjusree (supra), the Supreme Court held as under: "27. But what could not have been done was the second change, by introduction of the criterion of minimum marks for the interview. The minimum marks for interview had never been adopted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court earlier for selection of District & Sessions Judges, (Grade II). In regard to the present selection, the Administrative Committee merely adopted the previous procedure in vogue. The previous procedure as stated above was to apply minimum marks only for written examination and not for the oral examination. We have referred to the proper interpretation of the earlier resolutions dated 24.7.2001 and 21.2.2002 and held that what was adopted on 30.11.2004 was only minimum marks for written examination and not for the interviews. Therefore, introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview, after the entire selection process (consisting of written examination and interview) was completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played which is clearly impermissible. We are fortified in this view by several decisions of this Court. It is sufficient to refer to three of them P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India (1984) ILLJ 314 SC, Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India: AIR 1985 SC 1351 , and Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa." 12.2. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Hemani Malhotra Versus High Court of Delhi, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 11 by the Supreme Court holding as under: "15. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Hemani Malhotra Versus High Court of Delhi, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 11 by the Supreme Court holding as under: "15. There is no manner of doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection can prescribe by rules the minimum marks both for written examination and vive-voce, but if minimum marks are not prescribed for vive-voce before the commencement of selection process, the authority concerned, cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process add an additional requirement/qualification that the candidate should also secure minimum marks in the interview. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that prescription of minimum marks by the respondent at vive-voce, test was illegal." 12.3. Keeping in view the settled law, the condition laid down in the notifications dated 21.09.2020 and 01.09.2020 is held to be illegal and unjustified and all the candidates who possess the registration with the Rajasthan Para Medical Council upto the last date of document verification i.e. 14.10.2020 shall be treated as eligible for consideration for appointment and if they have been denied consideration on the ground that they did not possess registration with the Rajasthan Para Medical Council upto 30.07.2020 shall be treated as eligible and shall be considered for appointment as per their merit. The writ petitions in this regard stand allowed. 12.4. The question, however, remains as to whether candidates, who have been directed to be registered by this Court, can be said to be eligible to participate in the selection process and should be given a chance to get their document verification done after the Rajasthan Para Medical Council registers them. So far as the State Government is concerned, it has been argued on their behalf that as the last date for document verification was fixed upto 14.10.2020 and in the notification dated 21.09.2020, it was mentioned that the registration must be done before 30.07.2020, therefore, even if, the Rajasthan Para Medical Council registers the candidates now, they are to be treated as ousted from participation in the selection process. The grievance with the Rajasthan Para Medical Council is to be treated separately than the eligibility for the posts under advertisement dated 12.06.2020. 12.5. The grievance with the Rajasthan Para Medical Council is to be treated separately than the eligibility for the posts under advertisement dated 12.06.2020. 12.5. Learned counsel for the petitioners on the other hand have pointed out that under the advertisement, it was provided that the document regarding registration with the Rajasthan Para Medical Council shall be examined at the stage of document verification of a candidate. It has also come on record that the last date for document verification was changed by the State and earlier the last date fixed was 30.09.2020 vide notification dated 01.09.2020. Later on, another notification was issued on 21.09.2020 increasing the date of document verification upto 14.10.2020. 12.6. The question arises whether 14.10.2020 should be treated as the final date for document verification or the candidates who have now been directed to be registered with the Rajasthan Para Medical Council be allowed to submit their document for the purpose of selection after 14.10.2020. 12.7. In the opinion of this Court, the State itself has not fixed a particulate date of document verification. It has been extended twice vide notifications dated 01.09.2020 and 21.09.2020. The court also notices that several sets of candidates were called on different dates for document verification. Hence, date of document verification is a flexible date depending on each individual candidate, who has been called on a particular date. Thus, in view of this Court, date of 14.10.2020 cannot be treated as sacrosanct. 12.8. In SB Civil Writ Petition No. 11502/2020, this court had taken earlier a view without examining the aforesaid aspect and treated the date of 14.10.2020 as sacrosanct and dismissed the petition. However, the said order has been recalled suo motu on 22.10.2020. This court finds that the petitioner therein has already been registered with the Rajasthan Para Medical Council on 14.10.2020, but she was called on 10.10.2020 resulting in her being ousted from the selection process. As this court has now reached to the conclusion that the date of 14.10.2020 i.e. last date of document verification for particular set of candidates cannot be treated as sacrosanct, the petitioner would be entitled for consideration. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 11502/2020 stands allowed. 12.9. Keeping in view the controversy which this Court has decided in the foregoing Issue Nos. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 11502/2020 stands allowed. 12.9. Keeping in view the controversy which this Court has decided in the foregoing Issue Nos. E, G and H, it is apparent that the petitioners therein possess the requisite qualification having passed Diploma from University duly recognized with the UGC and recognized by the State Government, but their registration was not done by the Rajasthan Para Medical Council. As this Court had already directed the Rajasthan Para Medical Council to register the candidates within a period of 15 days henceforth, the natural corollary is that such candidates must be allowed to submit those registration before the appointing authority for the purpose of consideration of their candidature for appointment as per their merit on the posts of Lab Technician and Assistant Radiographer. 12.10 The State Authorities are, therefore, directed to conduct a fresh document verification after a period of three weeks henceforth i.e. from 18.11.2020 onwards and all the candidates who possess the registration on or upto 18.11.2020 shall be considered for the purpose of appointment as per their merit. Even such candidates who are able to receive NOC from other Universities and get themselves registered with the Rajasthan Para Medical Council shall also be considered for the purpose of appointment. Accordingly, the writ petitions of such candidates are allowed. 13. Accordingly, on the basis of foregoing discussions and findings: (i) On Issue No. A-SBCWP Nos. 6700/2020 and 6714/2020 are dismissed. (ii) On Issue No. B-SBCWP Nos. 6397/2020, 6772/2020, 7775/2020, 7787/2020, 7798/2020 and 8034/2020 are dismissed. (iii) On Issue No. C-SBCWP Nos. 6644/2020, 7498/2020, 7768/2020 and 7892/2020 are dismissed. (iv) On Issue No. D-SBCWP Nos. 8908/2020, 6593/2020, 6614/2020, 6620/2020, 6624/2020, 7577/2020, 7634/2020, 7659/2020, 8115/2020, 8354/2020, 8812/2020, 9078/2020, 9092/2020, 9283/2020, 9588/2020, 10935/2020, 11071/2020, 11271/2020, 11601/2020, 11689/2020 and SBCWP No. 10955/2020 are dismissed. (v) On Issue No. E-SBCWP Nos. 18456/2018, 6413/2020, 6442/2020, 6446/2020, 6632/2020, 6638/2020, 6672/2020, 6677/2020, 6681/2020, 6687/2020, 6689/2020, 6708/2020, 6710/2020, 6712/2020, 6720/2020, 6766/2020, 6774/2020, 6881/2020, 6895/2020, 6941/2020, 7063/2020, 7070/2020, 7131/2020, 7142/2020, 7338/2020, 7348/2020, 7667/2020, 7793/2020, 7797/2020, 7799/2020, 7804/2020, 7813/2020, 7911/2020, 7942/2020, 7949/2020, 7951/2020, 7975/2020, 7993/2020, 7994/2020, 7995/2020, 8026/2020, 8132/2020, 8299/2020, 9078/2020, 9417/2020, 9795/2020, 10221/2020, 10455/2020, 10639/2020, 10944/2020, 10972/2020, 11035/2020, 11925/2020 and SBCWP No. 12166/2020 are allowed. (vi) On Issue No. F-SBCWP Nos. (vi) On Issue No. F-SBCWP Nos. 6380/2020, 6382/2020, 6388/2020, 6396/2020, 6398/2020, 6414/2020, 6643/2020, 6680/2020, 6683/2020, 6688/2020, 6896/2020, 7133/2020, 7150/2020, 7174/2020, 7270/2020, 7271/2020, 7272/2020, 7273/2020, 7335/2020, 7341/2020, 7365/2020, 7433/2020, 7435/2020, 7580/2020, 7584/2020, 7615/2020, 7616/2020, 7673/2020, 7723/2020, 7789/2020, 8014/2020, 8235/2020, 10579/2020 and 10781/2020 are dismissed. (vii) On Issue No. G-SBCWP Nos. 7646/2020, 7944/2020, 8369/2020, 9761/2020, 9797/2020, 9828/2020, 9945/2020, 10197/2020, 10361/2020, 10410/2020, 10468/2020, 10471/2020, 10586/2020, 10588/2020, 10608/2020, 10637/2020, 10662/2020, 10678/2020, 10820/2020, 10860/2020, 10866/2020, 10894/2020, 10900/2020, 10901/2020, 10902/2020, 10903/2020, 10904/2020, 10905/2020, 10906/2020, 10928/2020, 10942/2020, 12494/2020, 11472/2020, 10948/2020 and 11216/2020 are partly allowed. (viii) On Issue No. H-SBCWP No. 11502/2020 is allowed. 14. All the pending applications also stand disposed of. 15. A copy of this order be placed in each of the file.