JUDGMENT : Since all these writ petitions involve a similar question of fact and law to be decided, therefore these are being taken up and decided together by way of this common judgment for the sake of brevity and convenience. 2. WPSS No.134 of 2023 shall be the leading case for the purpose of deciding the controversy involved in this batch of writ petitions. 3. The facts of these matters are that the respondent no.4 published an advertisement on 03.01.2023 inviting applications from the candidates for supplying the vacancies on the post of Nursing Officer (Female/Male) in the Department of Medical Health and Family Welfare, Uttarakhand. As per the qualification given in the said advertisement, petitioners, who were duly qualified, to submit their application forms being eligible. There is no dispute about their eligibility for the purpose of filling up the application forms for the said post. The main controversy falls in a very narrow compass with regards to the upper age limit of the candidates. According to Clause 7 of the advertisement dated 03.01.2023, age of a candidate shall be reckoned from 01.07.2022 and on that date, candidate must have attained minimum age of 21 years and maximum of 42 years. The said Clause of the advertisement is being quoted herein below: ^^7- vk;q%& vk;q x.kuk dh fu'pk;d frfFk 01 tqykbZ 2022 gSA vH;FkhZ dh vk;q 01 tqykbZ] 2022 dks U;wure 21 o"kZ gks rFkk vf/kdre 42 o"kZ ls vf/kd vk;q izkIr u dh gksA ijUrq mÙkjk[k.M jkT; dh vuqlwfpr tkfr;ksa] vuqlwfpr tutkfr;ksa o vU; ,slh Jsf.k;ksa] tks fd jkT; ljdkj }kjk le;≤ ij vf/klwfpr dh tk;s] dks mPprj vk;q lhek mrus o"kZ vf/kd gksxh] ftruh fu;eksa esa fofufnZ"V dh x;h gksA^^ 4. It is the submission of the petitioners that in the year 2020, an advertisement was also issued by the Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education on 12.12.2020 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) for the post of Staff Nurse (Female/Male) for the respondent-department. The petitioners are those persons who have submitted their candidature by applying pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement dated 12.12.2020. It is submitted by the petitioners that according to the Clause 02 of the said advertisement, age was to be reckoned from 01.01.2020 and the candidate applying pursuant to the said advertisement must have attained minimum age of 21 years and not more than 42 years of age on that date. It is submitted by the petitioners that according to the Clause 02 of the said advertisement, age was to be reckoned from 01.01.2020 and the candidate applying pursuant to the said advertisement must have attained minimum age of 21 years and not more than 42 years of age on that date. The petitioners were age-wise eligible on that date and accordingly they submitted their applications. But, unfortunately, no recruitment was held pursuant to the said advertisement and a fresh advertisement was issued on 02.02.2021 by Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education for the same vacancies. By issuing this subsequent advertisement, earlier advertisement dated 12.12.2020 was cancelled, but it has been specified that the candidates, who have submitted their on-line application and fee pursuant to the earlier advertisement dated 12.12.2020, need not to re-apply for the said post. It is pertinent to state at this stage that the post of Staff Nurse (Female/Male) was subsequently given new nomenclature and is now known as Nursing Officer (Female/Male). In the aforesaid advertisement dated 02.02.2021, a corrigendum was issued on 09.02.2021 and from this corrigendum, 1383 more posts were added (earlier it was 1238), which resulted into the total vacancies under the said corrigendum leading to 2621. However, in the corrigendum it has been stated that all other terms and conditions shall remain same as per advertisement dated 02.02.2021 except addition of 1383 posts, which brought total number of post to be filled up to 2621. 5. Ultimately, pursuant to the advertisement dated 02.02.2021, the recruitment process was initiated and provisional admit cards were issued to the petitioners, wherein the date of written examination fixed was 18.04.2021, but due to certain reasons, best known to the respondents, the date of written examination was postponed to 15.06.2021. Finally, this time again, the recruitment process brought to an end by the respondent-State itself and no examination was held. Vide Government Order dated 21.09.2021 (Annexure No.9 to the writ petition) it has been stated that the selection on the post of Staff Nurse(Female/Male) {now Nursing Officer(Female/Male)} shall be made by respondent no.4-Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection Board in view of the Second Amendment in the Uttarakhand Subordinate Nursing (Non-gazetted) Service Rules, 2020. In this background, the present advertisement was issued on 03.01.2023 for supplying the vacancies of Nursing Officer (Female/Male), earlier known as Staff Nurse. 6. In this background, the present advertisement was issued on 03.01.2023 for supplying the vacancies of Nursing Officer (Female/Male), earlier known as Staff Nurse. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the delay in selection process was made by the respondents itself and there is no fault on the part of the petitioners for such inordinate delay in filling the aforesaid vacancies, which has been firstly advertised in the year 2020. 7. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that due to delay in selection process and by the time of issuance of the fresh advertisement on 03.01.2023, these petitioners have already become overage approximately by two years and they have become disqualified for even filling the application form for the said advertised posts. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that at the earlier point of time, the petitioners were well within the age limit and in even second advertisement which was issued and subsequently corrigendum was issued, it has been specifically mentioned in those advertisements that the terms and conditions of the selection would remain same as has been given in the earlier advertisement issued by respondent no.3 and no fresh application would be required to be submitted by the petitioners if they have already applied and deposited their fees and requisite formalities having been completed by them. Thus, their interest was protected by the respondents. 8. Petitioners have filed these writ petitions on the ground that their candidature shall be deemed to have been within the upper age limit and the condition regarding age i.e. condition no.7 of the advertisement dated 03.01.2023 shall be relaxed to that extent. The candidature of the petitioners shall be admitted and they shall be provisionally permitted to participate in the selection process pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement dated 03.01.2023. 9. This Court vide interim order dated 18.01.2023, after hearing both the parties, granted permission to the petitioners to provisionally participate in the selection process and pursuant to that interim order, they participated in the selection process which was to be done by respondent no.4 as year-wise selection on the basis of the marks obtained by them in Diploma or Degree Course. Now, the fact of the case is that the petitioners participated in the selection process, and on 12.09.2023, 84 vacancies of Nursing Officer (Female/Male) have been kept in abeyance for these petitioners and others, which are under litigation. Results for rest of the candidates have been declared on 12.09.2023. 10. The attention of this Court has been drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the Government Order dated 14.10.2022 issued by the State Government (Annexure no.10 to the writ petition), whereby, in the similar situation where selection body has been changed by the respondent-State, the age relaxation has been given. 11. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the State has opposed these writ petitions. The attention of this Court was drawn to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.3-Director General, Medical Health and Family Welfare. The main crux of the argument of learned State Counsel is that the determination of the age in any recruitment is a policy decision; the earlier recruitment agency i.e. Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education (UBTER) has not been impleaded as a party and Rule 10 of the Uttarakhand Subordinate Nurses (Non-gazetted) Service Rules, 2019, as amended time to time, has not been put to challenge which fix the age of the candidates to the selection pursuant to the aforesaid Rules on the post of Nursing Officer. 12. It is further submitted by the learned State Counsel that in writ petition no. 103 of 2021 (S/B) Sangeeta Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, which has been filed by the petitioner of that writ petition with a prayer that “declaring the Rule 5 and 15 (2) (3) (4) (5) and (6) of the Uttarakhand Subordinate Nursing (Non-gazetted) Service (Amendment) Rules, 2020, as well as the advertisement dated 2-2-2021 and 9-2-2021 as null and void being ultra vires to the Constitution of India and further prayed quashing the advertisement dated 2-2-2021 and 9-2-2021 and directing the respondent to fill up the post of staff nurse on the basis of the merit obtained by them in the Diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery on the year wise basis., but, no relief was granted to the petitioner therein. 13. Learned State Counsel further draw the attention of this Court to Para 20 of counter affidavit wherein, according to him, in the similar set of circumstances, in writ petition no.180 of 2023 (S/S) Rebeecca Singh Vs. 13. Learned State Counsel further draw the attention of this Court to Para 20 of counter affidavit wherein, according to him, in the similar set of circumstances, in writ petition no.180 of 2023 (S/S) Rebeecca Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, no relief has been granted to the petitioner of that writ petition. 14. Learned State Counsel relied upon Para 16 of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Thingujam Achouba Singh and others Vs. Dr. H. Nabachandra Singh and others reported in (2020) 20 SCC 312 to buttress his argument. 15. However, the facts of the case of Dr. Thingujam Achouba Singh and others (supra) are entirely different to the facts of the present writ petitions and therefore this case law does not come to rescue of the State. 16. Learned State Counsel further relied upon Paras 21 to 28 of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hirandra Kumar Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Another reported in (2020) 17 SCC 401 . 17. Similarly, since the facts of this case are also entirely different to that of the present case, therefore, this case law will also not come to the rescue of the State. 18. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 has submitted that respondent no.4 being merely a selecting body has no issue with regard to dilution of Clause 7 of the advertisement dated 03.01.2023 by which the maximum age was prescribed as 42 years on 01.07.2022. 19. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in order to settle the controversy involved in these writ petitions, the argument which has been advanced by the learned State Counsel is first to be dealt with. 19. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in order to settle the controversy involved in these writ petitions, the argument which has been advanced by the learned State Counsel is first to be dealt with. So far as the argument of the learned State Counsel that it is a policy decision to fix the age in the recruitment is concerned, there is no denial so far as the principal is concerned, but here, in the case, the writ petition is not based to challenge the policy decision of fixation of the age, rather the writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners simply for the reasons that they had submitted their applications for the post of Nursing Officer (Female/Male) in a selection process to be held by Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education (UBTER) by issuance of an advertisement dated 12.12.2020, on which date all the petitioners were well within the maximum age limit of 42 years and were eligible age-wise for the selection. The said selection was not held for the reason, as stated in the preceding paragraph of this judgment and therefore, the petitioners are asking for treating them to be within the maximum age by dilution of Clause 7 of the advertisement dated 03.01.2023, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. 20. The main point which has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the advertisement which has now been issued on 03.01.2023 is for the same posts and the vacancies which have been offered by the advertisement dated 12.12.2020, subsequently substituted by advertisement dated 02.02.2021 with a subsequent corrigendum dated 09.02.2021, wherein, it is prescribed that those candidates who applied earlier and deposited their fees, need not to apply afresh. 21. In this view of the matter, the argument that the petitioners are somehow challenging the policy decision of the State Government does not hold any water and the same is hereby rejected. 22. The next argument has been submitted by the learned State Counsel that the earlier recruitment agency i.e. Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education (UBTER) has not been impleaded as a party and therefore, there is a defect in these writ petitions of non-joinder of a necessary party. 22. The next argument has been submitted by the learned State Counsel that the earlier recruitment agency i.e. Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education (UBTER) has not been impleaded as a party and therefore, there is a defect in these writ petitions of non-joinder of a necessary party. Since, the earlier recruitment was being held by UBTER by issuance of the advertisement which has subsequently been cancelled by subsequent advertisement issued on 02.02.2021 with a corrigendum issued on 09.02.2021, and now after the selection was to be made by a different agency-respondent no.4 for the self same post and the said vacancies were increased by adding 1383 posts in the selection, UBTER, being a simpliciter Recruitment Agency, has no role with the present selection; nor is it under any legal obligation to submit that under which circumstances the selection process pursuant to earlier advertisement was cancelled. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that UBTER is neither a necessary party nor a proper party. This argument is also decided in negative. 23. It has further been submitted by the learned State Counsel that the Rule 10 of the Rules of 2015 has not been challenged and therefore, the writ petition is not filed with proper facts and no proper relief is claimed. However, the facts of the matter is that the petitioners rest their case only an inaction on the part of the respondents for not conducting the selection process in time, and in these circumstances, they are before this Court to get the discretionary relief to be given by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, there is no need to challenge Rule 10 because, inasmuch as, the petitioners are not aggrieved by the provision of the Rule relating to age contained in Rule 10 of Rules of 2015, rather they are aggrieved by the inaction and undue delay caused by the respondent-State in the selection process rendering them overage. Therefore, the argument submitted by learned State Counsel is not worthy to be entertained and the same is hereby rejected. 24. Therefore, the argument submitted by learned State Counsel is not worthy to be entertained and the same is hereby rejected. 24. In this view of the matter where the advertisement was issued on 12.12.2020 supplying for the post of Staff Nurse (Female/Male) {now Nursing Officer(Female/Male)} and a subsequent advertisement was issued substituting the earlier one on 02.02.2021 and further a Corrigendum was issued on 09.02.2021 wherein it has been specifically stated that the candidates, who have already applied pursuant to the advertisement issued on 12.12.2020, need not to apply afresh, and further the terms and conditions of the advertisement dated 02.02.2021 has not been changed except the increase in the number of post, the petitioners are not at fault at all for their deprivation from the selection process only on the ground of their being overage. 25. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the delay caused by the respondents in completion of the selection process is fatal to the interest of the petitioners and they have illegally been deprived of their right to be considered for appointment on the post of Nursing Officer (Female/Male), and therefore, they are entitled to get age relaxation treating them to be eligible so far as the upper age limit is concerned, as all of them were below 42 years when they applied pursuant to advertisement dated 12.12.2020, enabling them to fall within the zone of consideration so far as the upper age limit is concerned. 26. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that all these writ petitions are liable to be and are accordingly allowed. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, by relaxing condition no.7 of the impugned advertisement dated 03.01.2023 qua the writ petitioners, a writ of mandamus is issued to the respondent-State as well as respondent no.4-Selecting Board directing them to treat the petitioners within the maximum age limit in the selection process held vide advertisement dated 03.01.2023 and to hold them eligible to apply for the said posts insofar as their upper age is concerned. The respondent no.4 is further directed to declare the result of the petitioners accordingly, and if they fall within the zone of consideration and are found otherwise qualified in all other aspects, they shall be recommended and offered the appointment(s). No order as to costs. 27. The respondent no.4 is further directed to declare the result of the petitioners accordingly, and if they fall within the zone of consideration and are found otherwise qualified in all other aspects, they shall be recommended and offered the appointment(s). No order as to costs. 27. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.