JUDGMENT : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J: 1. Since all the instant petitions involve a common controversy though with marginal variation in the contextual facts, therefore, for the purposes of the present analogous adjudication, the facts and the prayer clauses are being taken from the above-numbered D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3757/2023, while treating the same as a lead case; rival submissions of the parties and the observations of the Court, in the present judgment, would also be based, particularly, on the factual matrix of the lead case. 2. The prayer clauses read as under:- “It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioners may kindly be allowed:- A. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned Para 7 (x) of the advertisement dated 11.11.2020 and rule 19(2) (b) & (c) Rajasthan forest subordinate rules 2015 states about the standard of Physical efficiency test for man including Ex-servicemen category irrespective of age/category in pursuance of the advertisement dated 11.11.2020 (Annex-2) and Corrigendum advertisement 11.03.2022 (Annex-3) may kindly be quashed and set aside. B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, any verbal/written order denying the selection of the petitioners on the post of Forest Guard in reference to Para 7 ¼d½ ¼[k½o ¼x½ of the advertisement dated 11.11.2020 and rule 19(2)(b) & (c) Rajasthan forest subordinate rules 2015 states about the standard of Physical efficiency test for man including Ex-servicemen category irrespective of age/category in pursuance of the advertisement dated 11.11.2020 (Annex-2) and Corrigendum advertisement dated 11.03.2022 (Annex-3) may kindly be quashed and set aside. C. By an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioners in the further process of selection for the post of Forest Guard by providing relaxation to the ex-servicemen in pursuance of the advertisement dated 11.11.2020 (Annex-2) and Corrigendum advertisement 11.03.2022 (Annex-3). D. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, Para 7 ¼[k½ o ¼x½ of the advertisement dated 11.11.2020 and rule 19(2)(b) & (c) Rajasthan forest subordinate rules 2015 states about the standard of Physical efficiency test for man including Ex-servicemen made applicable for ex-servicemen be kindly relaxed to the extend to fulfill the reserved posts for ex-servicemen to achieve the legislative goal in connection of reservation provided to ex-servicemen in pursuance of the advertisement dated 11.11.2020 (Annex-2) and Corrigendum advertisement 11.03.2022 (Annex-3). E. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the appointment to the petitioners by relaxing Para 7 ¼[k½ o ¼x½ of the advertisement dated 11.11.2020 and rule 19(2)(b) & (c) Rajasthan forest subordinate rules 2015 states about Physical efficiency test for man including Ex-servicemen made applicable for ex- servicemen for the post of forest guard with all consequential benefits in pursuance of the advertisement dated 11.11.2020 (Annex-2) and corrigendum advertisement 11.03.2022 (Annex-3). F. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners. G. Writ petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed with costs.” 3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioners, are that the respondents issued an advertisement No.04/2020 dated 11.11.2020 whereby applications were invited for recruitment of Forester and Forest Guard; in pursuance of the same, the petitioners being retired from the Armed Forces were eligible under the category of Ex-serviceman for the said post, thereby filed an online application for the post in question. Thereafter, the respondents further published a detailed corrigendum advertisement dated 11.03.2022 increasing total number of posts. 3.1. Subsequently, the examination for the post of Forest Guard (post in question) was conducted and the result for written examination was declared on 26.01.2023 wherein the petitioners names were included making them eligible for Physical Efficiency Test (PET), whereafter the petitioners submitted representations to the respondents requesting to relax the Rules/conditions as regards the PET qua the petitioners, however the same is yet to be responded. Aggrieved by the inaction on part of the respondents, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petitions claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the reservation policy for Ex-servicemen, the same is governed by the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex-Servicemen) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1988’) and Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex Servicemen) (Amendment) Rules, 2018 and the subsequent Amendment 2020 whereby 12.5% reservation was given to the Ex-serviceman category, however, the respondent department in absolute contravention of the legal intent of the legislation did not provide relaxation in the Physical Efficiency Test. 4.1. 4.1. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards Rule 18A inserted in the Rules of 1988 by amendment vide notification dated 17.04.2018, and the relevant portion of said Rule 18A reads as under: “18A. Concessions.- Following concessions shall be allowed to the ex-servicemen for making them eligible for employment:- (i) & (ii) . . . . . . (iii) physical fitness or physical test parameters wherever prescribed for selection to any post such parameters shall be relaxed appropriately by the State Government.” 4.1.1. Learned counsel laid much emphasis on the word “appropriately, as occurring in the afore-quoted Rule 18A, stating that the respondents were under an obligation to grant appropriate relaxation in the physical efficiency test, qua the ex-servicemen, in the recruitment process in question. 4.2. It was further submitted that as per the advertisement dated 11.11.2020, the standard of Physical Efficiency was to be for all candidates including ex-serviceman/sehariya of Bara District and ST and SC/ST category of Scheduled areas, thus the act of respondents in fixing criteria at par even for ex-serviceman and other category with general candidates without giving due consideration to the age factor of the ex-servicemen is unjustified in law. The relevant portion of the said advertisement dated 11.11.2020 is reproduced as hereinbelow: 4.3. Learned counsel also drew attention of this Court towards para 10 of the advertisement in question, which reads as under: 4.4. Learned counsel also submitted that relaxation for the category of Ex-serviceman has previously been given in physical Efficiency Test of the police department and thus not doing the same for the post in question was discriminatory in nature. 4.5. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court:- (a) State of Orissa Vs. Mohd. Yunus & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 5099 of 1993, decided on 17.09.1993). (b) Avni Prakash Vs National Testing Agency (NTA) & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.7000 of 2021 decided on 23.11.2021); (c) National Testing Agency Vs Vaishanavi Vijay Bhopale & Ors. (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 17027/2021, decided on 12.11.2021); (d) The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Karunesh Kumar & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 8822-8823 of 2022, decided on 12.12.22); (e) State of Rajasthan Vs Gopi Kishan Sen AIR 1992 SC 1754 ; 5. (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 17027/2021, decided on 12.11.2021); (d) The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Karunesh Kumar & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 8822-8823 of 2022, decided on 12.12.22); (e) State of Rajasthan Vs Gopi Kishan Sen AIR 1992 SC 1754 ; 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, while opposing the submissions so made on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that a bare perusal of the impugned advertisement dated 11.11.2020 makes it clear that paragraph 7 thereof provided for Physical Efficiency and physical measurement however, no provision for relaxation qua Ex-servicemen is provided in the same and the petitioners despite having full knowledge of the same applied for the post in question pursuant to the said advertisement. 5.1. It was further submitted that the petitioners have already cleared the written examination and it was only prior to conducting of the Physical Efficiency Test that the present writ petitions were filed, thus once the petitioners had already accepted the conditions set out in the advertisement, they could not later on lay challenge to a particular part/conditions of the selection process. 5.2. It was also submitted that Rule 18-A of the Rules of 1988 provides for grant of relaxation to the extent of 5% in the minimum qualifying marks to pass the examination in individual paper or in aggregate, and the said relaxation had already been granted in the written qualifying examination and availed by the petitioners. 5.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the physical Efficiency Test under the Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred as to ‘Rules of 2015’) conducted for the post in question is just a qualifying examination and not the one for determination of merit as is the case under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989; moreover, Rule 19 of Rules of 2015 provides for physical efficiency and physical fitness test and for the post in question physical fitness plays a vital role in discharging of duties, thus relaxation cannot be claimed as a matter of right and even as per Rule 18A inserted vide notification dated 17.04.2018 in the Rules of 1988, the requisite parameters to be relaxed had been left at the discretion of the Government. 6. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents, through impleadment application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7699/2023, submitted that the physical efficiency test had already been conducted and the candidates having achieved the desired results, out of total number of posts i.e. 766 for Ex-servicemen, about 400 Ex-servicemen have already cleared the physical test. As per learned counsel, Rule 19 of the Rules of 2015, provides for no relaxation for the Ex-servicemen category. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the validity of Rule 19 of the Rules of 2015 had already been upheld by the Coordinated Bench of this Hon’ble Court in case of Kheta Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (D.B. Civil Writ No. 4938/2016, & other connected matters decided on 07.12.2016). 7.1. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Anupal Singh & Ors. Vs State of U.P. (2020) 2 SCC 173 and Union of India & Ors. Vs N. Murugesan (2022) 2 SCC 25 . 8. In rejoinder submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per Rule 18 A of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex Servicemen) (Amendment) Rules 2018 with the use of word ‘appropriately’, it is clearly indicated therein that the State Government should have given relaxation in the Physical Efficiency Test. In furtherance, it was submitted that Rule 52 of the Rules of 2015 provides for power to relax the rules wherein the Administrative Department of the Government may relax the rule relating to the age or requirement of experience for the recruitment process, if it is necessary or causing undue hardship in any particular case. 8.1. In furtherance, it was submitted that the State of Rajasthan brought a specific amendment in the Rules of 1988, by inserting Rule 18A in the said Rules, in the year 2018, making the Rules of 1988 as a special set of Rules, inasmuch as the newly added Rule 18A, in no uncertain terms, provides that physical fitness or physical test parameters wherever prescribed for selection to any post, such parameters shall be relaxed appropriately by the State Government; whereas Rule 19 of the Rules of 2015, as harped upon by the respondents, is a general provision, thus precedence should be given to the special Rules i.e. Rules of 1988 (as amended). 9. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 10. This Court observes that the petitioners who are ex-servicemen applied for the post of Forest Guard in pursuance of the advertisement dated 11.11.2020 and were declared successful for appearing in the Physical Efficiency Test, whereafter, since the petitioners were not extended the relaxation in question, they have challenged Rule 19 (2) (b) (c) of Rules of 2015 and the aforesaid advertisements for not being providing with relaxation in the Physical Efficiency Test. 11. This Court further observes that the interim order dated 24.04.2023 has been passed in one of the connected matters i.e. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4784/2023 wherein though the interim order was passed, it was directed that the outcome of the ex-servicemen category pertaining to Non-TSP area shall not be declared by the respondents without prior permission of this Court, however the liberty was given to respondents to go ahead with Physical Efficiency Test in pursuance of the advertisement in question. 12. This Court further observes that the advertisement in question issued for the post in question is governed by the Rules of 2015 and the Physical Efficiency Test was conducted in accordance with Rule 19 of the Rules of 2015 for all the candidates who appeared in the Physical Efficiency Test. The said Rule is reproduced as hereunder: “19. Physical Fitness and Physical Efficiency Test.- (1) ………. These standards of physical efficiency shall apply to candidates of all categories including Ex-Service Personnel / Saharia candidates residing in Baran District & SC/ST candidates of Tribal sub-plan area. …………………” 12.1. This Court also observes that a bare perusal of the afore-quoted Rule makes it evident that there exists no relaxation with regard to category of Ex-serviceman and the said Rule states that the test in question will be applicable to candidates belonging to all categories including that of the Ex-servicemen. 12.2. This Court further observes that the validity/vires of the aforesaid Rule 19 of the Rules of 2015 was upheld by the Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Kheta Ram (supra), the relevant portion whereof is reproduced as hereunder: “9. 12.2. This Court further observes that the validity/vires of the aforesaid Rule 19 of the Rules of 2015 was upheld by the Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Kheta Ram (supra), the relevant portion whereof is reproduced as hereunder: “9. Rule 19 of the Rules of 2015, which makes provision for physical fitness and physical efficiency test, prescribes different standards of height, chest girth and other physical efficiency test for male and female candidates and also provides for relaxed standards of height and chest girth for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and races such as Assamese, Bhutanese, Garhwalis, Gorkhas, Kumaonis, Ladakhese, Mizo, Naga, Nepalese, Sikkimese and those from Arunachal Pradesh, Lahul and Spiti and Meghalaya. So far as physical efficiency test is concerned, the different standards have been provided for male and female candidates but no such relaxation has been extended to the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and races such as Assamese, Bhutanese, Garhwalis, Gorkhas, Kumaonis, Ladakhese, Mizo, Naga, Nepalese, Sikkimese and those from Arunachal Pradesh, Lahul and Spiti and Meghalaya rather, a specific provision has been incorporated that the standard of physical efficiency shall apply to the candidates of all categories including ex-service personnel/Saharia candidates residing in Baran district and SC/ST candidates of Tribal Sub Plan area. ...... 13. In Madhu’s case (supra), where the female candidate had questioned the vires of the Rule 19 (2)(a) of the Rules of 2015, prescribing chest girth for the female candidates as 79 cms. with an expansion of 5 cm., a Bench of this court observed that the physical standards settled in the Rules of 2015 as per the requirement of service cannot be questioned till it is found to be in violation of fundamental rights or in conflict with any other provision of the Constitution of India or any enabling enactment or the authority framing the rule is not competent. The court observed that every service has its own needs and requirements. Accordingly, the challenge to the Rule 19(2)(a) of the Rules of 2015, failed. 14. The court observed that every service has its own needs and requirements. Accordingly, the challenge to the Rule 19(2)(a) of the Rules of 2015, failed. 14. In view of the discussion above, we are of the considered opinion that if looking to the job requirement, the rule making authority has not prescribed relaxed standards of the physical fitness for the ex-service personnel rather, specifically provided that the standards of the physical fitness as prescribed shall apply to all categories including ex-service personnel, the provision incorporated as aforesaid, cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary or discriminatory so as to violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India”. 12.3. Thus, in light of the observations made in Kheta Ram (supra), whereby the validity and legality of Rule 19 of the Rules of 2015 has been upheld, while holding that the same is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, then the afore-quoted condition 7(x) as contained in the impugned advertisement, cannot in any manner, be said to be violative of any provisions of law or prejudicial to the interests of any category of persons, particularly, the Ex-servicemen. 13. This Court further observes that in the overall scenario, it is clear that there is no repugnancy/contradiction in both the provisions i.e. Rule 19 of the Rules of 2015 and Rule 18A inserted by amendment in the year 2018, particularly, as regards the recruitment process in question and thus, have to be considered harmoniously. However, since Rule 19 of the Rules of 2015 (especially enacted for the post in question) specifically employed a language that the standards of physical efficiency shall apply to candidates of all categories, including Ex-service Personnel, and thus, the relaxation in question, as claimed on the strength of Rule 18A, while stating it to be special provision and having precedence over the Rules of 1988, is not worthy of being granted. 13.1. 13.1. This Court further observes that the afore-quoted Rule 18A of the Rules of 1988 (brought in vide the amendment in the year 2018) clearly states that for physical fitness or physical test parameters wherever prescribed for selection to any post, such parameters shall be relaxed appropriately by the State Government with regard to ex-servicemen, thus, laying emphasis on the word ‘appropriately’, and it is evident that the respondents had taken into due consideration the strenuous work attached to the post in question, and thus, in the recruitment in question, providing relaxation in physical efficiency test would not be appropriate nor would it be in accordance with the demands of the work involved. 14. This Court also observes that the relaxation provided for the Ex-servicemen in the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 is not applicable in the present case, because the job attached to the post in question is completely different, and furthermore, no provision for grant of any such relaxation has been made in the Rules of 2015. 15. This Court further observes that the physical fitness is a vital aspect for the post of Forest Guard requiring the selected candidates to endure tough conditions such as mountain climbing and treading through rough terrains, thus the job profile is such that demands physical movement and involves strenuous work, making it crucial that the persons so selected for the post in question maintain a certain standard of physical fitness. 16. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioners in the present petitions. 17. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.