JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Alok Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gaurava Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent, Sri Utsav Mishra, learned counsel for the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission and Ms. Shagun Srivastava, learned State Law Officer. 2. The petitioners in the present bunch of petitions claims to have been working on the post of Health Worker (female)/ANM (Auxiliary Nurse Midwife) in different districts of the state of Uttar Pradesh on contract basis and have sought to challenge the legality & validity of the Government order dated 20.11.2020, to the extent it grants approval to the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission for holding two-level/phase examination system for Group "C" post including the post of Health Worker (female). 3. A challenge has been sought to be laid to the advertisement dated 25-05-2021, whereby a Preliminary Eligibility Test (PET) has been conducted for all those desirous candidates seeking employment in any Group "C" Post in the state of Uttar Pradesh. A further challenge is also made to the advertisement dated 15-12-2021, whereby only those candidates had been found to be eligible for applying for the main examination for the post of Health Worker (Female), who had earlier appeared in the PET. 4. Suffice to say, the Petitioners have filed the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs: (I) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned advertisements dated 25.5.2021 and 15.12.2021 issued by the opposite party no. 3, contained as Annexure Nos. 1 & 2 respectively to this writ petition, to the extent the same pertains to the selection of Health Worker (Female). (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to give effect to the impugned advertisements dated 25.5.2021 and 15.12.2021 issued by the opposite party no. 3, contained as Annexure Nos. 1 & 2 respectively to this writ petition, to the extent the same pertains to the selection of Health Worker (Female); (iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 10.8.2021 as well as the impugned Government order dated 20.11.2020, to the extent it grants approval to the Commission for holding two-level/phase examination system for Group-C post, issued by the opposite party no. 1 i.e. the State Government, contained as Annexure Nos. 1 i.e. the State Government, contained as Annexure Nos. 3 & 4 respectively to this writ petition. (iv) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to give effect to the impugned order dated 10.8.2021 as well as the impugned Government order dated 20.11.2020 to the extent it grants approval to the Commission for holding two-level/phase examination system for Group-C post, issued by the opposite party no. 1 i.e. the State Government, contained as Annexure Nos. 3 & 4 respectively to this writ petition. (v) Or in the alternative, to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to permit the petitioners to appear in written test in pursuance of the impugned advertisement dated 15.12.2021 for the main examination for the post of Health Worker (Female) keeping in view the letter of the State Government dated 7.7.2021, contained as Annexure No. 11 to this writ petition, and ignoring the impugned order dated 10.8.2021 issued by the State Government, contained as Annexure No. 3 to this writ petition. (vi) to pass such other or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioners. (vii) allow the writ petition with the costs in favour of the petitioners. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that the said PET being conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission is in complete violation of the Uttar Pradesh Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Health workers and Health Supervisors (Male & Female) Non-gazette service Rules, 2018 relating to experience relaxation, direct recruitment etc. The petitioners have also grounded their writ petition on the order dated 10.08.2021 passed by the state government, wherein, although the state government rejected the proposal of the Health Department for exemption/relation of the PET for the post of Health Worker (female) as selection process has already commenced, but has allegedly assured that the said proposal shall be considered in future and as such it has been alternatively prayed that permission may be granted to the petitioners to appear in the written test in pursuance to the advertisement dated 15.12.2021 for the post of Health worker(female). 6. 6. Notice was issued to the respondents and a counter-affidavit has been filed by the additional chief secretary, department of Medical, Health & family Welfare, Government of Uttar Pradesh, seeking dismissal of the present writ petition on three grounds: A. The last date of submission of online application forms etc. in advertisement dated 15.12.2021 was 05-01-2022 and the last date of amendment in any such applications was 12-10-2022. B. The female health workers who are presently working in the department on contract basis are given weightage of 15 numbers and 5 years of age relaxation on the basis of their experience as provided in the Uttar Pradesh Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Health workers and Health Supervisors (Male & Female) Non-gazette service Rules, 2018. C. Similar writ petition being Writ-A 96 of 2022 (Smt. Mridul and 15 others) had been filed in the present court, wherein a coordinate bench has passed a detailed order dated 04.02.2022 while dismissing the said writ petition. Further, even an intra-court appeal preferred being Special Appeal No. 74 of 2022 has also been pleased to dismiss the said special appeal vide an order dated 09-03-2022. 7. This court has given its anxious thoughts to the issue involved in the present writ petition and finds that the issue in the present case has been already dealt with earlier by a coordinate bench of this court, as has been rightly pointed by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents. The said judgment dated 04.02.2022 squarely applies to the four corners of the facts of the present case. The said judgement can be profitably curled in as follows: "………………. The Court may, first of all, refer to the Uttar Pradesh Medical, Health and Family Welfare Department Health Workers and Health Supervisors (Male and Female) Non-Gazetted, Service Rules, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules, 2018'). Part-V of the said Rules deals with the procedure for recruitment. As per Rule 14 contained therein the appointing authority is required to determine the number of vacancies to be filled during the course of the year of recruitment etc and the number of vacancies to be filled through the Commission are required to be intimated to it. Rule 15(a) of the Rules, 2018 reads as under: - "15. As per Rule 14 contained therein the appointing authority is required to determine the number of vacancies to be filled during the course of the year of recruitment etc and the number of vacancies to be filled through the Commission are required to be intimated to it. Rule 15(a) of the Rules, 2018 reads as under: - "15. (a) Direct recruitment to the Posts of Health Worker (Male) and Health Worker (Female) shall be made in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh direct recruitment to Group ''C' Posts (Mode and Procedure), Rules, 2015, as amended from time to time." Clause (b) and (c) of Rule 15 of the Rules, 2018 deal with weightage to a person who is working as Auxiliary Nurse Midwife on contract basis which is not relevant for the purposes of this case. In view of Rule 15 (a) of the Rules, 2018 direct recruitment to the posts of Health Worker (Female) is to be made in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Direct Recruitment to Group ''C' Posts (Mode and Procedure), Rules, 2015, (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules, 2015') as amended from time to time. The Court may, therefore, straightaway referred to these Rules of 2015. Rule 8(1) of the Rules, 2015 deals with the procedure for direct recruitment and it reads as under:- "8(1) The procedure for direct recruitment, the syllabus, marks of written examination/interview and the rules relating thereof shall be such as prescribed by the Commission from time to time with the approval of the Government." Now, as per Rule 15 (a) of the Rules, 2015 Procedure for Direct Recruitment etc shall be such as prescribed by the Commission from time to time with the approval of the Government. Now, in this very context, the Court may refer to U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission (Procedure & Conduct of Business), Regulation, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Regulation, 2015') which have been made by the U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission, with the prior approval of the State Government, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 16 and 23 of the U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission Act, 2014. Now, Regulation 6 of the said Regulation, 2015 deals with the procedure for selection of candidates. Now, Regulation 6 of the said Regulation, 2015 deals with the procedure for selection of candidates. The Regulation 6 of the Regulation, 2015 is quoted hereinbelow: - "(1) The Commission shall make selection of candidates examination or by interview or by both through objective or other form of test in accordance with the provisions of the relevant service rules/regulations. (2) The Commission may with the prior approval of the Government, hold a combined competitive examination for a group of posts and may also take a preliminary test or examination for screening of candidates. (3) The Commission shall advertise the vacancies through the Print media or Electronic media or both and invite applications from eligible candidates. Manner of inviting application forms includes online submission of application forms through Internet as prescribed by the Commission. Applications received in response to advertisement shall be scrutinized by the office in the manner determined from time to time. (4) In making selection by competitive examination or interview including preliminary examination or test, the Commission may take recourse to modern testing aids including the use of computers at one or more stages of selection viz the stages of receipt and processing of applications, issue of call letters, evaluation of answer books, issue of interview letters and processing of results under the close supervision of one or more officers of the Commission to be nominated by the Chairperson. (5) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in relevant Service Rules or Government orders regarding recruitment, the Commission may hold preliminary examination/screening test for finding out suitable candidates for admission to main examination or interview, as the case may be. (6) Preliminary examination shall mean screening test to be conducted by the Commission with the purpose of finding out suitable candidates in required proportion as fixed by the Commission in each category, reserved and unreserved for admission to the main examination or interview, as the case may be. (7) Preliminary examination shall be conducted in the manner prescribed in the Uttar Pradesh Direct Recruitment through Public Service Commission Preliminary Examination Rules, 1986 as amended from time to time, which is deemed to be adopted for the said purpose. The marks obtained by the candidates in the preliminary examination/screening test shall not be counted for determining final order of merit. The marks obtained by the candidates in the preliminary examination/screening test shall not be counted for determining final order of merit. (8) The Commission shall fix the place, dates and time of examination which includes preliminary examination/ screening test and main examination, as the case may be. (9) The centers of examinations shall be fixed with prior approval of the Commission. (10) All arrangements for such examinations shall be made by the Controller of Examination cum Joint Secretary in consultation with the Secretary and in accordance with such directions as may be issued by the Commission in that behalf." On a bare reading of the above quoted Regulation 6, it is clear that the Commission is empowered to take a preliminary test or examination for screening of candidates with the prior approval of the Government. Sub-regulation (5) of the Regulation 6, in fact, goes on to state that notwithstanding anything contained in relevant service rules or government orders regarding recruitment, the Commission may hold preliminary examination/ screening test for finding out suitable candidates for admission for main examination or interview, as the case may be. Sub-regulation (6) of Regulation 6 says that the preliminary examination shall mean screening test to be conducted by the Commission with the purpose of finding out suitable candidates in required proportion as fixed by the Commission in each category, reserved and unreserved for admission to the main examination or interview, as the case may be. Sub-regulation (7) of Regulation (6) says that preliminary examination shall be conducted in the manner prescribed in the Uttar Pradesh Direct Recruitment through Public Service Commission Preliminary Eligibility Test Rules, 1986 as amended from time to time, which is deemed to be adopted for the said purpose. The marks obtained by the candidates in the preliminary examination/ screening test shall not be counted for determining final order of merit. Thus, the only argument raised by Sri A.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no provision for holding a preliminary test is belied from the provisions quoted hereinabove. It is not his case that prior approval of the Government has not been taken before holding such preliminary test, nevertheless, as informed by Sri Mehrotra such prior approval has been taken and is referred in the letter of the Commission dated 22.07.2021. It is not his case that prior approval of the Government has not been taken before holding such preliminary test, nevertheless, as informed by Sri Mehrotra such prior approval has been taken and is referred in the letter of the Commission dated 22.07.2021. This apart, learned counsel for the Commission also informs the Court that though the petitioners have annexed a letter of Additional Chief Secretary, Medical & Health dated 07.07.2021 requesting the Commission to do away with the provision for Preliminary Eligibility Test for the post of Health Workers (Female) for which the Auxiliary Nurse Midwife are eligible for being considered, what the petitioners have not disclosed is that based on this, the Commission had sought guidance from the Karmik Department of the State Government vide its letter dated 22.07.2021 and Karmik Department of the State Government informed the Commission with a copy of the decision to the Additional Chief Secretary, Medical & Health that the proposal of the department for doing away with the preliminary eligibility test cannot be accepted at this stage when the selection/ examination has already been set in motion. Be that as it may, in view of the discussion already made, as no other ground has been pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court and there is a provision under which the preliminary test could be held by the Commission, the post being within the purview of the Commission and there being no dispute in this regard, the petition fails and is dismissed." 8. Further, this court has been informed that an intra-court appeal had been filed against the aforesaid order of the Ld. Coordinate bench, which was also dismissed vide an order dated 09.03.2022 passed in Special Appeal No. 94 of 2022, wherein the Hon'ble Division bench has by upholding the Judgment passed by the Ld. Single Judge has inter-alia concluded: "….For the reasons disclosed and discussion made above, we are in complete agreement with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge which is under challenge herein. The special appeal is, thus, dismissed." 9. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the facts of the aforesaid decided case are at variance to the facts of the present petition. The special appeal is, thus, dismissed." 9. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the facts of the aforesaid decided case are at variance to the facts of the present petition. According to him, there are several petitioners who have crossed the age of 40 years, which was the maximum age limit prescribed in the PET advertisement and as such according to him, in case the age relaxation on account of the past services rendered by them as per rule 10 of the service rules, 2018 would had been made available to them in the impugned advertisement dated 25.05.2021, these petitioner's very well would had participated in the said PET. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel that these petitioners were not allowed to submit their application form in pursuance to the said advertisement, which was in violation of the service rules, 2018. The Ld. Counsel in his written submission has tried to substantiate the aforesaid ground by submitting that even the commission has admitted its error and as such a clarification has been inserted in the advertisement issued on 28.06.2022, wherein it has been clarified under clause 6.3 that those candidates, whose age stands lapsed can also apply in the PET taking advantage of the age relaxation available to them as per the service rules, 2018. Thus, it is the submission of the Ld. Counsel that the impugned PET did not provide for the age relaxation as is being provided in the present PET advertisement, which clearly shows that the impugned advertisement was violative of the service rules, 2018. 10. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent/Commission submits that the PET in furtherance to the impugned advertisement was conducted on 24.08.2021 and the results were declared on 28.10.2021 and the score was valid for one year. It is the specific stand of the Ld. Counsel that the petitioner's, who have consciously and knowingly chosen not to appear for the PET examination, which was widely published, cannot be permitted to challenge the same at this belated stage when the result stood declared on 28.10.2021 and even the advertisement for the main examination stood published as on 15.12.2021. The Ld. Counsel that the petitioner's, who have consciously and knowingly chosen not to appear for the PET examination, which was widely published, cannot be permitted to challenge the same at this belated stage when the result stood declared on 28.10.2021 and even the advertisement for the main examination stood published as on 15.12.2021. The Ld. Counsel articulated his argument on the basis that the validity of holding the PET examination by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission for selection on the post of Health Worker (Female) stands settled by various judgements of this court, including: i. Judgment dated 04.02.2022 passed in Writ A 96 of 2022 (Smt. Mridul and Others V/s State of U.P & Ors.), which was upheld vide order dated 09.03.2022 in Special Appeal No. 74 of 2022. ii. Judgment dated 07.05.2022 passed in Special Appeal No. 332 of 2022 (Neetu Singh and Others V/s State of U.P and Others) iii. Judgment dated 29.04.2022 passed in Writ A 2460 of 2022 (Vijay Laxmi and Others V/s State of U.P & Ors.), which was upheld vide order dated 07.05.2022 in Special Appeal No. 193 of 2022. iv. Judgment dated 26.05.2022 passed in Writ A 3079 of 2022 (Smt. Anju Devi & 171 Others V/s State of U.P & Ors.), which was upheld vide order dated 09.06.2022 in Special Appeal No. 300 of 2022. 11. This court is also in complete agreement with the reasoning and discussion given by the Ld. Single Judge and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Judgment dated 04.02.2022 passed in Writ A 96 of 2022 (Smt. Mridul and Others V/s State of U.P & Ors.), which was upheld vide order dated 09.03.2022 in Special Appeal No. 74 of 2022. Further, as far as the specific argument of the Ld. Counsel of the petitioner that his contention relating to the relaxation of age in view of rule 10 of the service rules, 2018 is concerned, this court finds that this court in Judgment dated 07.05.2022 in Special Appeal No. 193 of 2022 (Vijay Laxmi and Others V/s State of U.P & Ors.), has already dealt the said aspect vividly at paragraph 8,9 and 10 as follows: "8. The appellant-petitioners had assailed the Advertisement dated 25-05-2021 and 15-12-2021 mainly on the ground that the maximum age prescribed in the Advertisement violates the provision contained in Rule 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Medical, Health and Family Welfare Department Health Workers and Health Supervisor (Male and Female) non-Gazetted, Service Rules, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 2018"), which provides as under:- "A candidate for direct recruitment must have attained the age of eighteen years and must not have attained the age of more than forty years on the first day of July of the calendar year in which vacancies for direct recruitment are advertised: Provided that the upper age limit in the case of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and such other categories as may be notified by the Government from time to time shall be greater by such number of years as may be specified. Provided further that the upper age limit for such candidates who was 4 working as auxiliary Nurse Midwife in the medical, Health and Family Welfare Department, by the government, Uttar Pradesh on contract basis and who possess the qualification prescribed in the rule-8(2) of these rule shall be greater by such number of completed years of services as they have rendered on contract basis subject to be maximum of five years for enabling them to become eligible for being considered for direct recruitment." 9. The learned counsel for the appellant-petitioners contended that as per the second Proviso appended to the aforesaid Rule 10 of the Rules of 2018, Health Worker (Female) are entitled to get a relaxation in the upper age limit of the number of completed years of service rendered on contractual basis, upto the maximum of 5 years. He submitted that paragraph-6 of the Advertisement dated 25-05-2021 provides that a candidate who has completed the age of 40 years, will not be eligible for appearing in PET and this condition violates Rule 10 of the Rules of 2018. 10. Rejecting the aforesaid submission, the learned Single Judge held that a perusal of Condition No. 6 of the Advertisement reveals that it specifically mentions that a candidate would be entitled to get relaxation in the upper age limit as per the Regulations / Government Orders issued from time to time. 10. Rejecting the aforesaid submission, the learned Single Judge held that a perusal of Condition No. 6 of the Advertisement reveals that it specifically mentions that a candidate would be entitled to get relaxation in the upper age limit as per the Regulations / Government Orders issued from time to time. It further clarifies that a candidate, who has qualified the PET, would be entitled to get relaxation in the age limit as per the service Rules applicable to the concerned post. Therefore, the submission of the Appellants-petitioners, that the advertisement provides for the upper age limit of 40 years which violates Rule 10 of the Rules 2018, is unacceptable as paragraph-6 of the Advertisement clearly states that relaxation in upper age limit would be admissible as per the relevant service rules / Government Orders." 12. Thus, this court is of the considered opinion that all the issues raised by the petitioner stands decided by this court in one matter or the other and the issues raised are no longer res integra. Moreover, this court cannot be oblivious of the law of precedents, which forms the foundation of administration of Justice and it has been held time and again that a single Judge of a High Court is ordinarily bound to accept as correct judgments of Courts of coordinate jurisdiction and of Division Benches and of the Full Benches of his Court. The reason of the rule which makes a precedent binding lies in the desire to secure uniformity and certainty in the law. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Sant Lal Gupta and Ors. vs. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. and Ors., (2010) 13 SCC 336 , held that it was neither desirable nor permissible by the coordinate Bench to disapprove the earlier judgment and take view contrary to it. A coordinate bench cannot comment upon the discretion exercised or judgment rendered by another coordinate bench of the same court. The rule of precedent is binding for the reason that there is a desire to secure uniformity and certainty in law. A bench must follow the decision of a coordinate bench and take the same view as has been taken earlier. The earlier decision of the coordinate bench is binding upon any latter coordinate bench deciding the same or similar issues. A bench must follow the decision of a coordinate bench and take the same view as has been taken earlier. The earlier decision of the coordinate bench is binding upon any latter coordinate bench deciding the same or similar issues. If the latter bench wants to take a different view than that taken by the earlier bench, the proper course is for it to refer the matter to a larger bench. 13. To the same effect is the judgment of the Apex Court reported in the State of Punjab and another versus Devans Modern Breweries ltd. and another, (2004) 11 SCC 26 , wherein paragraph 339 laid down the following: - "339. Judicial discipline envisages that a coordinate Bench follow the decision of an earlier coordinate Bench. If a coordinate Bench does not agree with the principles of law enunciated by another Bench, the matter may be referred only to a Larger Bench. (See Pradip Chandra Parija v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik, (2002) 1 SCC 1 followed in Union of India Vs. Hansoli Devi, (2002) 7 SCC 273 . But no decision can be arrived at contrary to or inconsistent with the law laid down by the coordinate Bench. Kalyani Stores (supra) and K.K. Narula (supra) both have been rendered by the Constitution Benches. The said decisions, therefore, cannot be thrown out for any purpose whatsoever; more so when both of them if applied collectively lead to a contrary decision proposed by the majority." 14. In view of the above, this court does not find any merits in the present writ petition and as such the same is accordingly dismissed in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.