ORDER : 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the letter dated 26.6.2012 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.1/State to respondent No.2, thereby disqualifying the petitioner for the post of Assistant Professor. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is having Ph.D. degree in the concerned subject awarded in the year 2000 from Dr. Hari Singh Gour University, Sagar (MP). He was working as a Casual Lecturer and Part-time Professor/Assistant Professor on contract basis since 1995 in different colleges. Since he fulfilled the requisite qualification as well as had the required experience as per the advertisement dated 22.6.2009 published by CGPSC, he applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the year 2009, but his candidature was rejected due to overage. Thereafter, the petitioner and three other candidates filed a writ petition i.e. WPS No.2711/2009 before this Court. This Court directed that the case of the petitioners only would be considered for relaxation of age in light of the observations made by the State Government. Accordingly, the State Government informed the Public Service Commission about the decision taken by it in the matter. Further, respondent No.1/Higher Education Department, issued a confidential letter in regard to candidate’s experiences pertaining to age relaxation, who had filed writ petitions before this Court. However, by the impugned letter dated 26.6.2012 (Annexure P/1), candidature of various candidates/writ petitioners, including the present petitioner whose name appear at Sl.No.2, was rejected. The petitioner’s candidature was rejected due to overage and the reason being shown that he could not complete the minimum required period for the age relaxation and lacking 1 year 11 months of required experience whereas he fulfilled the minimum requirement of experience pursuant to the advertisement for the post of Assistant Professor. In addition to that, the petitioner is awarded Ph.D. degree in the concerned subject. 3. Aggrieved by the rejection of their candidature, the petitioner and three other candidates filed another writ petition i.e. WPS No.142/2013 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 7.3.2013 with an observation that the petitioners, if so advised, may prefer a duly constituted contempt petition if the order passed by Division Bench of this Court has not been complied with. The petitioner and other candidates submitted several representations before the competent authorities but they failed to take any fruitful decision in their favour. The petitioner and other candidates submitted several representations before the competent authorities but they failed to take any fruitful decision in their favour. The erstwhile State of MP had also advertised the post of Assistant Professor wherein five years age relaxation was given to Guest Lecturer. The petitioner is also having required experience of Guest Lecturer and other experiences. Hence this petition for the following reliefs: “10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner and after its perusal allow the petition. 10.2 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly further be pleased to set aside the impugned letter dated 26.6.12 issued by respondent No.1 State to the respondent No.2 (Annexure P-1) so far as it relates to the present petitioner only. 10.3 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly further be pleased to direct the respondent authority to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Professor considering experience earned from Poly Technique college as also giving age relaxation in accordance with law. 10.4 Any other relief or direction which the Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, be also issued in favour of the petitioner.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after direction of this Court, the respondent authorities had taken wrong action against the petitioner whereas the petitioner had fulfilled the minimum required qualification for the post of Assistant Professor. The respondent authorities wrongly calculated the experience of the petitioner. He was working as a Professor in Govt. Poly-technique College, Ambikapur. The educational qualification for Professor in Govt. Poly-technique College as well as for Assistant Professor recruited through CGPSC is similar. Even then the respondent authorities did not admit the experience earned from Govt. Poly-technique College and rejected the petitioner’s candidature on irrelevant ground. Copy of the experience certificate of the petitioner issued by the Govt. Poly-technique College, Ambikapur has been filed as Annexure P/9. He submits that the respondent authorities have considered the case of other candidates for age relaxation who are having experience as part time professor whereas the petitioner’s experience earned from Poly-technique College as part time professor has been completely ignored. Therefore, a suitable direction is needed to be issued to the respondent authorities for considering the candidature of the petitioner also. Therefore, a suitable direction is needed to be issued to the respondent authorities for considering the candidature of the petitioner also. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union Public Service Commission Vs. Dr. Jamuna Kurup and others, (2008) 11 SCC 10 . 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents strongly oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submit that as per direction of this Court vide order dated 29.3.2012 in WPS No.2711/2009 , the State Government issued the impugned order dated 26.6.2012 (Annexure P/1) informing respondent No.2 that as the petitioner could not complete the minimum required period for age relaxation i.e. 1 year and 11 months, therefore, his candidature has been rejected on the ground of being overage. The second writ petition i.e. WPS No.142/2013 was dismissed vide order dated 7.3.2013. The petitioner has relied upon the advertisement (Annexure P/8) issued by MP PSC whereby five years of age relaxation has been given to the Guest Lecturers. The State Government passed the order of Annexure P/1 in compliance of the order dated 29.3.2012 passed by this Court. As per Clause 4.1.6 of the advertisement, Shikshakarmis have been extended the benefit of age relaxation in accordance with Notification No.F 1-2/2002/1/3 dated 2nd June, 2004 issued by the General Administration Department which prescribes that in government services on various posts, Shikshakarmis would be provided with the benefit of relaxation in upper age limit up to the petitioner for which they have served on their respective post, up to a maximum of 45 years. Considering the above clause, the impugned order has been passed rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the ground of he being overage as he possessed the working experience of 1 year and 5 months whereas he was required to have working experience of 1 year and 11 months. This Court in its order dated 29.3.2012 had given the benefit of age relaxation to only those Teachers/Assistant Professors who approached this Court in that batch of writ petitions and not to other Teachers/Assistant Professors, who may be standing on similar footing as the petitioners in those writ petitions but who did not file writ petition before this Court. This Court in its order dated 29.3.2012 had given the benefit of age relaxation to only those Teachers/Assistant Professors who approached this Court in that batch of writ petitions and not to other Teachers/Assistant Professors, who may be standing on similar footing as the petitioners in those writ petitions but who did not file writ petition before this Court. Since this Court granted the benefit of age relaxation only to the petitioners of the said writ petitions, which was decided vide order dated 29.3.2012 and not to other similarly placed persons and the petitioner herein is not even on similar footing, his claim for similar relief granted to the petitioners in WPS No.3719/2010, cannot allowed. Hence the instant petition being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. In the previous writ petition WPS No.2711/2009 and other connected petition, this Court passed order on 29.3.2012 and observed in paras 37 to 39, 41 and 43 as under: “37. A comparison of the minimum qualification required for appointment on the post of contract Assistant Professor and Shiksha Karmi Grade-I shows that the minimum qualification required for appointment on the post of contract Assistant Professor is higher than is required for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I and on the other hand the minimum required qualification for appointment on the post of contract as well as regular Assistant Professor is more or less the same. The contract Assistant Professors were recruited to serve in the Higher Education Department, whereas Shiksha Karmis have been recruited to serve in the schools comes under various Panchayats of the State of Chhattisgarh and in fact they are not Government servants but the employees of the Panchayats. 38. On 20.4.2011 during the course of hearing it was observed that in Government services, relaxation in age has been made but for certain posts under certain policy, therefore, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State was granted time to show in counter affidavit or in the supplementary affidavit about the nexus in giving relaxation in certain posts like Shiksha Karmis and not in the post i.e. contract Teachers/Assistant Professors and what is the object in the same sought to be achieved. It was also directed that the relevant records in this regard shall also be produced on the next date of hearing. It was also directed that the relevant records in this regard shall also be produced on the next date of hearing. Thereafter, the matter was listed on various dates i.e. 9.5.2011, 30.6.2011, 26.7.2011, 1.8.2011, 2.8.2011, 7.9.2011, 12.9.2011 & 13.12.2011 and arguments were heard but no response has come from the side of the State in regard to the above direction. Virtually, the State has failed to reply despite adequate opportunities granted in this regard to explain as to what was the nexus in giving age relaxation to certain class of posts and as to what is the object sought to be achieved in giving relaxation to Shiksha Karmis, who are not even the employees of the State Government and are employees of Panchayats and their minimum qualification is less than the qualification of contract Teaches/Assistant Professors. 39. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that not providing age relaxation to the petitioners, who had been working on the post of contract Teachers/Assistant Professors and at the same time providing age relaxation to Shiksha Karmis, who even do not belong to the Govt. Service but belong to Panchayat service and the minimum requisite qualification prescribed for them is lesser than contract Teachers/Assistant Professors, amounts to discrimination and it is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Looking to the facts situation, as noticed above, wherein Shiksha Karmis have been granted relaxation in age for serving in the schools run by the Panchayats but the petitioners, who had been rendering their services, in the schools come under the Higher Education Department, have been ignored, we are of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to get similar benefit in age relaxation akin to Shiksha Karmis, otherwise, it would amount to discrimination in an arbitrary manner. 41. Therefore, we are of the opinion that at this juncture it would be just and proper to direct the respondents i.e. State Government and Public Service Commission to take interview of the petitioners granting them age relaxation, akin to Shiksha Karmis and then to complete the selection and appointment process. 43. Accordingly, we direct that the case of the petitioners only would be considered for relaxation of age in the light of the observations made above by the State Government and the State Government would inform the Public Service Commission about the decision taken by it. 43. Accordingly, we direct that the case of the petitioners only would be considered for relaxation of age in the light of the observations made above by the State Government and the State Government would inform the Public Service Commission about the decision taken by it. In turn, the Public Service Commission would take necessary steps in that regard after receiving the intimation from the State Government and thereafter, the Public Service Commission would be free to declare and publish the result of the selection, in accordance with law.” 8. In another writ petition i.e. WPS No.142/2013, this Court vide order dated 7.3.2013 dismissed the writ petition observing in paras 2 & 3 as under: “2. Once this Court has issued writ of mandamus in petitioners’ favour, it is for the authorities to consider their case, however, if according to the petitioners, such consideration has not been made, a fresh writ petition would not lie. 3. The petitioners, if so advised, may prefer a duly constituted contempt petition, if the order passed by Division Bench of this Court has not been complied with.” 9. The petitioner again preferred a representation (Annexure P/7) but the same was rejected by the impugned order dated 26.6.2012 on the ground that the petitioner is lacking in requisite experience for getting age relaxation. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Jamuna Kurup (supra) held in para 15 as under: “15. The respondents who were appointed on contract basis initially for a period of six months, extended thereafter from time to time for further periods of six months each, were therefore, employees of MCD, and consequently, entitled to the benefit of age relaxation. If the intention of MCD and UPSC was to extent the age relaxation only to permanent employees, the advertisement would have stated that age relaxation would be extended only to permanent or regular employees of MCD or that the age relaxation would be extended to employees of MCD other than contract or temporary employees. The fact that the term 'employees of MCD' is no way restricted, makes it clear that the intention was to include all employees including contractual employees. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court extending the benefit of age relaxation. 11. In the matter of Raghvendra Agrawal Vs. The fact that the term 'employees of MCD' is no way restricted, makes it clear that the intention was to include all employees including contractual employees. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court extending the benefit of age relaxation. 11. In the matter of Raghvendra Agrawal Vs. State of MP and others reported in (2009) ILR (MP) 1017 the High Court of Madhya Pradesh observed as under: “However, as the Petitioners have served for long period as directed in Umadevi’s case, State Government to fill up the post by way of regular recruitment as far as possible within 8 months, it is not proper to take the services on the basis of guest lecturers. Petitioners shall be given age relaxation for the period which they have rendered services with the Respondents. Respondents also to consider to give weightage to the experience which is possessed by them. Petitioners also to be considered for the academic sessions which is going on within 4 weeks. It is not proper to remove the earlier persons session wise and to appoint fresh persons every year. Writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.” 12. This Court also observed in para 38 of its order dated 29.3.2012 passed in WPS No.2711/2009 and other connected petition, that the State has failed to reply despite adequate opportunities being granted to explain as to what was the nexus in giving age relaxation to certain class of posts and what is the object sought to be achieved in giving relaxation to Shiksha Karmis, who are not even the employees of the State Government and are employees of Panchayats and their minimum qualification is less than the qualification of contract Teaches/Assistant Professors. So, it is clear from these observations that this Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioners’ claim for age relaxation as they are on better footing as compared to Shiksha Karmis who are not even the employees of the State Government but are employees of Panchayats and their minimum qualification is lesser than the qualification of contract Teachers/Assistant Professors. In the present case, the petitioner’s candidature has been rejected on the ground that he is entitled for age relaxation of only 1 year and 5 months whereas he is required to have relaxation of 1 year and 11 months. 13. In the present case, the petitioner’s candidature has been rejected on the ground that he is entitled for age relaxation of only 1 year and 5 months whereas he is required to have relaxation of 1 year and 11 months. 13. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the observations made by this Court in the previous order as also keeping in view the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petition is allowed and the impugned letter/order dated 26.6.2012 (Annexure P/1) insofar as it relates to the petitioner is hereby set aside. The petitioner is also held entitled for age relaxation like other Panchayat Karmis.