ORDER : 1. The factual matrix of the case in brief is that on 01.07.2013 the respondent No.4 [Additional Director (Admn.), Medical & Health Department), issued an advertisement inviting applications from the eligible candidates for recruitment on the posts of Assistant Radiographer, Lab Technician and Lab Assistant. As per the facts available on the record, the petitioner submitted his Online application form. The petitioner stated in the application form that he has worked as a Lab Technician from 31.05.2005 to 28.02.2013 at ECHS Polyclinic, Churu under a Scheme maintained and operated by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence. The candidature of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents by not considering his experience certificate dated 28.03.2013 on the ground that it is not a genuine and authentic one, as required under the provisions of advertisement for the purpose of granting bonus marks and age relaxation. The petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents department in view of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6881/2015, decided on 06.10.2016. However, the representation of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he is over-aged. Therefore, he cannot be allowed the age relaxation on the basis of the experience certificate issued to him in his favour as same has not been issued by the Institution of the Central Government. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Notification dated 06.02.2013 issued by the Department of Personnel, Govt. of Rajasthan, provides for relaxation in age by a period equal to service rendered on the similar post in any capacity, subject to maximum of five years, under the Government, Chief Minister BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh, National Rural Health Mission, Medi Care Relief Society, AIDS Control Society, Institutes under the Cooperative Department or Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar. Counsel further submitted that as per the advertisement dated 01.07.2013, the maximum age limit for consideration of the candidature is 35 years. Counsel also submitted that the High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10246/2013, decided on 26.02.2016 has observed that in view of the Circular dated 08.02.2016 issued by the respondents, as referred in that, for the purpose of granting bonus marks to the employees working on contract basis, the word ‘government’ shall include the ‘State Government as well as the Central Government’. Counsel further submitted that the petitioner had an experience of working as a Lab Technician at ECHS Polyclinic Churu, which was maintained and operated by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence. Counsel submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was made as a Lab Technician on contract/ personal bond/ temporary basis under the Ex-Soldier Contributory Health Scheme. Therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for the benefit of bonus marks as well as age relaxation on the basis of experience certificate issued in his favour for working under ECHS. Counsel further submitted that the respondents without taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and the observations of the High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10246/2013, decided on 26.02.2016 as well as the order dated 6.10.2016 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6881/2015, have rejected the candidature of the petitioner vide order dated 26.07.2017 holding him to be over-age saying that the experience certificate possessed by him is not issued by the institution of the Central Government. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents department submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit on the basis of experience certificate issued in his favour because he is claiming the age relaxation and bonus marks on the basis of experience certificate in view of the Circular/letter dated 08.02.2016. Counsel further submitted that the Circular/ letter dated 08.02.2016 has been withdrawn lateron by the respondents and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Considered the submissions advanced by both the learned counsels and carefully scanned and scrutinized the entire material made available to the Court. 5. The respondents department issued an advertisement on 01.07.2013 inviting applications from all the eligible candidates for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Radiographer, Lab Technician and Lab Assistant. As per Clause of the advertisement, the maximum age limit for consideration of the candidature to be eligible is 35 years and as per Clause 4 of the advertisement, a candidate is entitled for the age relaxation as per Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (for short ‘the Rules of 1965’). 6. As per Clause of the advertisement, the maximum age limit for consideration of the candidature to be eligible is 35 years and as per Clause 4 of the advertisement, a candidate is entitled for the age relaxation as per Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (for short ‘the Rules of 1965’). 6. As per the Notification dated 06.02.2013 issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, an amendment was made in Rule 10 of the Rules of 1965 after existing last proviso to Rule 10 of the said rules following the new proviso, which reads thus:- “The upper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxed, for the posts which are not in the purview of commission, by a period equal to service rendered on the similar post in any capacity, subject to maximum of 5 years, under the Government, Chief Minister BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh, National Rural Health Mission, Medi Care Relief Society, AIDS Control Society, Institutes under cooperative Department or Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar.” The aforesaid proviso which was added in Rule 10 of the Rules of 1965 clearly speaks of relaxation in the upper age limit by a period equal to the service rendered by a candidate on the similar post in any capacity in various Schemes under the government. 7. The petitioner has placed on record the experience certificate dated 28.03.2013 for working on the post of Lab Technician under the Ex-Soldier Health Scheme being run by the Central Government. 8. The respondents themselves have issued a Circular/ letter dated 08.02.2016 which speaks that the government has referred for grant of bonus marks etc. to the candidates working on contract basis which also includes the Central Government as well as the State Government. 9. This Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10246/2014, decided on 26.02.2016 after taking into consideration the Circular/ letter dated 08.02.2016 has observed as under:- “As regards the persons who are appointed through placement agencies can be considered in the light of the judgment reported in 2013(4) RLW 3451 (Raj.) and as regards their working in the National Institute of Ayurveda is concerned, it is brought to our notice that the State Government has taken a decision & communicated to Sh. G.S. Gill Additional Advocate General dt.8-2-2016 that such of the candidates who are working either in the Central Government Institution or in the institution controlled by the State Government or in National Institute of Ayurveda may be considered for grant of bonus marks u/R 19 of the Rules as they fall within the ambit of Art.12 of the Constitution of India. We consider it appropriate to quote the decision of the State Government and communicated to Sh. G.S. Gill Additional Advocate General dt.8-2-2013, which reads ad infra:- ^^mi;qZä fo"k;kUrxZr lanfHkZr i= ds Øe esa funsZ'kkuqlkj ys[k gS fd dsUnzh; laLFkku vU; jkT; ljdkj ,oa jkVªh; vk;qosZn laLFkku esa dk;Zjr vH;FkhZ@deZpkjh tks] lafonk ds vk/kkj ij dk;Zjr gS] dks cksul vad fn;s tkus ds laca/k esa jkT; ljdkj dk vfHker fuEu izdkj gS%& jktLFkku tujy DykWtst ,DV 1955 esa ^^ljdkj** ls vfHkizk;] dsUnz o jkT; ljdkj nksuksa ls gSA lkFk gh lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 12 ds vUrxZr LFkkuh; fudk; Hkh jkT; dh ifjHkk"kk ds vUrxZr lekfgr gSaA** We further make it clear that this Court has not expressed about the individual petitioner whether he had been engaged by the CWP-10246/13 National Institute of Ayurveda or engaged through placement agency and it is for the petitioners to place documentary evidence in support of their claim but we may hold that as regards the persons who are appointed through placement agency or by the National Institute of Ayurveda, by virtue of decision of the State Government dt.8-2-2016 & the judgment of which reference has been made supra, may be considered for grant of benefit of bonus marks in terms of proviso to R.19 of the Scheme of Rules for participating in the selection process and if found suitable and finds place in the order of merit after bonus marks may be considered for appointment & with these directions/observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.” 10. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6881/2015 filed by the petitioner which was decided on 06.10.2016 along-with other connected petitions, the Division Bench after taking into consideration the Circular/ letter dated 08.02.2016 and the observations made in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10246/2013, decided on 26.02.2016 has observed in para Nos. 9 and 10 as under:- “9. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6881/2015 filed by the petitioner which was decided on 06.10.2016 along-with other connected petitions, the Division Bench after taking into consideration the Circular/ letter dated 08.02.2016 and the observations made in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10246/2013, decided on 26.02.2016 has observed in para Nos. 9 and 10 as under:- “9. In our opinion, the judicial propriety demands that once the order dated 8.2.2016 having been accepted by the three Division Benches, either it is required to be referred to the Larger Bench or to be accepted. 10. In that view of the matter, the three Division Benches of this Court accepted the order dated 8.2.2016, we approve the same and the State Government will follow the letter dated 8.2.2016 in its true spirit and benefit as per letter dated 8.2.2016 will be given to all the petitioners in these petitions or appellants of appeal, subject to verification of the requirement under the letter dated 8.2.2016. 11. The petitioner is having an experience certificate for holding the post of Lab Technician under the ECHS Scheme being sponsored by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence on 30.10.2002. Since the petitioner is working under the Health Scheme on the post of Lab Technician which is being sponsored by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence, he is entitled for all kinds of benefits and regularization as provided to similarly situated candidates under the advertisement dated 01.07.2013 and the Notification dated 06.02.2013. The experience of the petitioner is required to be considered for grant of benefit of age relaxation in view of proviso added to Rule 10 of the Rules of 1965 vide Notification dated 06.02.2013 and so also the other benefits including the bonus marks as are being given to the candidates on the basis of the experience, as referred in a newly added proviso to Rule 10 by the Notification dated 06.02.2013. 12. The date of birth of the petitioner is 15.07.1975. The cut-off date for ascertaining the upper age limit given in the advertisement is 01.01.2014 and as per the cut-off date given in the advertisement, the age of the petitioner is 39 years. 12. The date of birth of the petitioner is 15.07.1975. The cut-off date for ascertaining the upper age limit given in the advertisement is 01.01.2014 and as per the cut-off date given in the advertisement, the age of the petitioner is 39 years. Since the petitioner is having the experience certificate for working on the post of Lab Technician under a Scheme sponsored by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence for a period from 31.05.2005 to 28.02.2013, which is more than five years and as per the new added proviso to the Notification dated 06.02.2013, the petitioner is entitled for an age relaxation upto five years and therefore, the petitioner as on 01.01.2014 is within the age limit after allowing the age relaxation. Hence, the rejection of the representation of the petitioner on one of the ground that he has crossed the upper age limit and so also the ground that he is not having an experience issued by the institution of a Central Government, are not sustainable for the reason that he has been issued the experience certificate for working under a Scheme sponsored by the Central Government and since the petitioner is having a valid experience certificate issued by the Central Government, he is entitled for age relaxation and on allowing the age relaxation as per newly added proviso to Rule of the Notification dated 06.02.2013, the candidature of the petitioner is required to be considered within the upper age limit. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for recruitment to the post of Lab Technician pursuant to the advertisement dated 01.07.2013 treating him to be within the age limit and he be allowed the required bonus marks for the experience certificate possessed by him for working on the post of Lab Technician under the ECHS Scheme. After considering the candidature of the petitioner, he may be given appointment on the post of Lab Technician on the basis of his merit in view of the observations made above, if otherwise, found eligible and suitable. 14. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order. 15. It is made clear that the petitioner would be entitled for all benefits including seniority and pay fixation, increments etc. 14. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order. 15. It is made clear that the petitioner would be entitled for all benefits including seniority and pay fixation, increments etc. treating him to be in service with effect from the date the persons less meritorious to him were given appointment. However, the petitioner would not be entitled for actual pay for the intervening period. 16. In view of the order passed in the main petition, the stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of.