ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. 1. The petitioner herein has preferred the instant writ petition seeking quashment of the order dated 18.07.2024 (Annex.12), whereby the respondents have rejected the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Librarian Grade-III on the ground of not fulfilling the age criteria prescribed under the initial recruitment advertisement dated 21.05.2018 and further he has sought direction for the respondents to grant him appointment on the aforesaid post. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that an advertisement dated 21.05.2018 was issued by the Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Service Selection Board, Jaipur inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to the post of Librarian Grade-III as per the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 and the Rajasthan Scheduled Areas Subordinate Ministerial and Class IV Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2014. As per clause 9 of the advertisement, an aspirant must have completed the age of 18 years as on 01.01.2019 to be eligible for appointment. The date of birth of the petitioner is 06.07.2001, as such, he had not completed the age of 18 years as on 01.01.2019 and therefore, he did not apply in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement. Later on, the State Government vide notifications dated 13.02.2019 and 19.02.2019 extended reservation to the extent of 5% and 10% to the Most Backward Class and Economically Weaker Sections. Thereafter, the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel vide order dated 23.06.2019 issued instructions to the agencies undertaking recruitment for various posts to the effect that for recruitments, where no examination had been conducted, the recruitment agency shall issue a revised recruitment advertisement providing revised classification of vacancies. It was also instructed that candidates of all categories shall be allowed to re-apply and the candidates who were earlier ineligible and did not apply, but are eligible at the time of the revised advertisement, their applications shall be accepted treating them eligible under the fresh advertisement. In pursuance of the order dated 23.06.2019, an amended advertisement dated 01.11.2019 was issued by the Board. The clause No.4 of the revised advertisement stipulated that all those candidates who were earlier ineligible and did not apply, however, were now eligible, shall be allowed to participate in the recruitment process. In pursuance of the order dated 23.06.2019, an amended advertisement dated 01.11.2019 was issued by the Board. The clause No.4 of the revised advertisement stipulated that all those candidates who were earlier ineligible and did not apply, however, were now eligible, shall be allowed to participate in the recruitment process. The petitioner had completed the minimum prescribed age of 18 years on the date of revised advertisement, therefore, he submitted his application form for recruitment to the post of Librarian Grade-III. The petitioner faced the selection process and eventually after document verification, vide order dated 25.03.2021, his name was recommended by the Board for posting/appointment. However, not steps were taken by the respondents to grant appointment to the petitioner, therefore, he preferred a writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4712/2022. The said writ petition was disposed of by this court vide order dated 29.11.2023 upon assurance given on behalf of the respondents that they shall pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law and give appointment to the petitioner in pursuance of the recommendation made by the Rajasthan Staff Selection Commission on 02.02.2023, if decision is taken in his favour. However, the respondents vide order dated 18.07.2024 have rejected the candidature of the petitioner citing the reason that he had not completed the age of 18 years on the cut off date provided under the original advertisement dated 21.05.2018. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that clause 4 of the revised advertisement clearly provides that those candidates, who were ineligible at the time of the original advertisement, but became eligible at the time of issuance of the revised advertisement, shall be allowed to participate in the recruitment process. The petitioner admittedly attained the minimum prescribed age at the time of issuance of the revised advertisement and as such, the action of the respondents in denying appointment to the petitioner is absolutely unjust, arbitrary and based on misinterpretation of the relevant clause and the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He, thus, prays for acceptance of the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has filed reply to the writ petition. He, thus, prays for acceptance of the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has filed reply to the writ petition. He submits that the revised notification was issued in order to provide reservation to the MBC and EWS categories and the same did not waive the condition mentioned in the original advertisement that a candidate must have completed 18 years of age on 01.01.2019. He further submits that only those candidates who met the minimum age eligibility as per the first notification and had not applied earlier can be considered eligible in the revised advertisement. His contention is that there is no irregularity or illegality in the decision taken by the respondents and as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6. It is an admitted position that the as per the original recruitment advertisement dated 21.05.2018, a candidate must have attained the age of 18 years as on 01.01.2019. The date of birth of the petitioner is 06.07.2001 and as such, he was not eligible at the time of first advertisement and therefore, he did not apply in pursuance of the said advertisement. Later on the State Government extended reservation for MBC and EWS categories vide notifications dated 13.02.2019 and 19.02.2019 respectively and thereafter vide order dated 23.06.2019, the recruitment agencies were instructed to issue fresh recruitment notifications in cases where the recruitment examination had not taken place. The relevant clause (iii) of the order dated 23.06.2019 is quoted hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference :- In pursuance of the said notification, the selection board issued the advertisement dated 01.11.2019. It would be appropriate to quote clause 4 of the said advertisement for the sake of ready reference :- The order dated 23.06.2019 issued by the Department of Personnel, in unambiguous terms provides that candidates of all categories shall be given opportunity to re-apply and for that, eligibility criteria shall be determined on the basis of the date of application in pursuance of the fresh advertisement. It is further clarified that those candidates, who had not applied earlier or who were not fulfilling the eligibility criteria as provided in the earlier advertisement, but now if they are fulfilling the eligibility criteria upon issuance of the fresh advertisement, they shall also be allowed to apply. It is further clarified that those candidates, who had not applied earlier or who were not fulfilling the eligibility criteria as provided in the earlier advertisement, but now if they are fulfilling the eligibility criteria upon issuance of the fresh advertisement, they shall also be allowed to apply. In the similar terms, clause 4 of the fresh advertisement provides that the eligibility conditions shall be determined on the basis of the date of re-application. 7. In the case at hand, admittedly, the petitioner had not attained the prescribed minimum age of 18 years on the cut off date i.e. 01.01.2019 and as such, he was not eligible to apply earlier. When the fresh advertisement was issued on 01.11.2019, the petitioner had attained the age of 18 years and thus, fulfilled the minimum age criteria prescribed under the rules and was eligible to hold the post. The respondents while passing the impugned order dated 18.07.2024 have taken a very absurd plea that there cannot be two cut off dates for the same recruitment process. A cut off date is prescribed in relation to the date of advertisement and when a fresh advertisement has been issued, the respondents cannot stress upon the cut off date given in the original advertisement, more particularly, when the order dated 23.06.2019 and the fresh advertisement dated 01.11.2019 in clear terms provides that the eligibility criteria shall be determined from the date of re-application. The cut off date is just a mechanism to ensure uniformity and that all the eligible candidates get equal opportunity. Once the Government decided to issue a revised advertisement and gave opportunity to apply to everyone including those who became eligible for recruitment after the last date of submission of forms in pursuance of the original advertisement, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that such opportunity is not available in relation to age criteria. When the recruitment processes goes on for years, the respondents are expected to adopt a pragmatic approach, rather then taking shelter of pretentious grounds to deny appointment to worthy candidates. 8. Further the contention of the respondents that the petitioner cannot be given age relaxation is also very absurd. In fact, the petitioner is not claiming any age relaxation. When the recruitment processes goes on for years, the respondents are expected to adopt a pragmatic approach, rather then taking shelter of pretentious grounds to deny appointment to worthy candidates. 8. Further the contention of the respondents that the petitioner cannot be given age relaxation is also very absurd. In fact, the petitioner is not claiming any age relaxation. The fresh advertisement was open for all such aspirants to apply, who were not fulfilling the eligibility criteria earlier, but possessing the same at the time of re-application. It is also worthwhile to note that the minimum age for holding a post is provided under the relevant service rules and as the petitioner was fulfilling the prescribed age criteria at the time of submitting application, there cannot be any justifiable reason for the respondents to deny appointment to the petitioner taking a ground that he is not fulfilling the requisite age criteria. 9. In the considered opinion of this court, the action of the respondents in denying appointment to the petitioner on the ground of not fulfilling the minimum age criteria is absolutely unjust, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is reiterated that the petitioner has been declared successful in the selection process and after document verification, his name has been recommended for appointment/posting. 10. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the instant writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.07.2024 (Annex.12) rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Librarian Grade-III in pursuance of the subject recruitment advertisement is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant appointment to the petitioner on the aforesaid post within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if he is otherwise fit for appointment and he shall not be denied appointment solely on the count that he was not fulfilling the age criteria as per the advertisement. The petitioner shall be entitled for notional benefits from the date similarly situated persons joined the post. 11. No order as to costs.