JUDGMENT : Arun Monga, J. 1. Facts and issue involved are since analogous, the aforementioned five writ petitions are being decided vide this common order. For convenience, facts and recitals of annexures are being referred from SBCWP No.16633/2023. 2. Grievance of the petitioners in all these petitions stems out of a provisional list dated 11.09.2023 (Annex.6) and a final list dated 22.09.2023 (Annex.8) prepared pursuant to the advertisement No.04/2023 for appointment on the post of Unani Medical Officers. Their candidature was excluded from the merit list. They also seek quashing of condition of advertisement in not granting relaxation in age limit on cumulative basis. 3. Briefly speaking, relevant facts of the case as pleaded in SBCWP No.16633/2023 are that the petitioner is a registered Unani Medical practitioner. He belongs to Other Backward class Non Creamy layer (OBC-NCL). He was appointed with NRHM and serving a Unani Medical Officer under NRHM. 3.1 The respondent department issued an advertisement dated 13.7.2023 (Annex.2) for the post of Unani Medical Officer. Petitioner also applied vide his application dated 24.7.2023. The respondent no. 4 published a list dated 15.08.2023 (Annex.4) of candidates invited for the document verification of Unani Medical Officer. Petitioner was also invited. 3.2 After the verification of the documents, the respondent no. 4 published a provisional merit list of eligible candidates for Unani Doctors on 11.09.2023 (Annex.6), wherein, petitioner’s name was not mentioned. In the said list, a note was given that if candidates have any objection regarding the provisional list, they may file their objections. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner also filed his written objection on 12.09.2023 (Annex.7), which were not even considered by the respondents and they instead issued a final list dated 22.09.2023 (Annex.8). Hence the writ petition. 4. Defence taken by the respondents in their reply inter-alia is that merit-list is prepared under the provisions of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1973. According to the said Rule 30% weightage/bonus marks are awarded depending on the duration of past experience of similar work under government, NRHM and Chief Minister BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh. 4.1 Advertisement clearly lays down that minimum age is 20 years and maximum age is 45 years as on 01.01.2024. However, an incumbent who was within age limit as on 31.12.2020 shall be deemed to be within upper age as on 31.12.2024. 4.1 Advertisement clearly lays down that minimum age is 20 years and maximum age is 45 years as on 01.01.2024. However, an incumbent who was within age limit as on 31.12.2020 shall be deemed to be within upper age as on 31.12.2024. That apart, a candidate who is continuously working as Unani Doctor in government, Chief Minister BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh, NRHM shall be entitled to age relaxation by the period equal to the service rendered by him subject to maximum of 5 years. Since petitioner was working under NHM, he was held entitled for age relaxation in consonance with the clause 12 of the advertisement. 5. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties have gone through the case files. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgments rendered in Malik Mazar Sultan Vs. UPSC, 2006 (9) SCC 507 and Ashish Kumar Vs. State of U.P., 2018 (3) SCC 55 . 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would urge that similar controversy in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13782/2023 : Dr. Dayaram Saran & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., has been by this Court decided on 27.09.2023 and in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16192/2022 : Dhuleshwar Ghogra Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 19.05.2023. Therefore, the present writ petition be decided in light of that judgments. 8. The Rules applicable for the recruitment of Unani Medical Officer are Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homoeopathy and Naturopathy Service Rules 1973. Rule 9 prescribes the criteria of age and age relaxation which is as below :- “Rule 9. Age:- A candidate for direct recruitment to the post enumerated in the Schedule must have attained the age of 20 years and must not have attained the age of 45 years on the 1st day of January next following the last date fixed for receipt of application. Provided that :- (i) that the upper age limit mentioned above shall relaxed- (a) by 5 years in the case of male candidates belonging to the Schedule Castes and the Schedule Tribes. Provided that :- (i) that the upper age limit mentioned above shall relaxed- (a) by 5 years in the case of male candidates belonging to the Schedule Castes and the Schedule Tribes. (b) by 5 years in the case of women candidates belonging to the general category; and (c) by 10 years in the case of women candidates belonging to Schedule Castes, Schedule Tribes and the Other Backward classes; (ii) the upper age limit shall be 50 years in the case of reservists, namely the Defence Service Personnel who were transferred to the Reserve; x-x-x-x-x xxxxx (v) a person appointed temporarily to the post + “in the Service” shall be deemed to be within the age-limit had he been within the age-limit when he was initially appointed even though he has crossed the age-limit when he appears finally before the Commission and shall be allowed up to two chances had he been eligible as such at the time of his initial appointment; x-x-x-x-x-x (xi) the upper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxed by 5 years in the case of candidates belonging to the Other Backward Classes. (xii) if a candidate would have been entitled in respect of his/her age for direct recruitment in any year in which no such recruitment was held, he/she shall be deemed to be eligible in the next following recruitment, if he/she is not overage by more than 3 years.” A perusal of the above reveals that there is no bar on giving benefit of cumulative age relaxation in the Rules so as to get benefit of both OBC, SC/ST age relaxation and at the same time relaxation for non advertisement of post as per Rule 9(xii). 9. Reference may also be had to the following notification :- “Notification dated 23.09.2008 No.F.7(6) DOP/A-II/2008 Jaipur, dated :23-9-08 NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Rajasthan hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Various Service Rules as specified in the Schedule appended herewith, namely:- 1. Short title and commencement.- (i) These rules may be called the Rajasthan Various Service (Fourth Amendment), Rules, 2008. (ii) They shall come into force with immediate effect. 2. Short title and commencement.- (i) These rules may be called the Rajasthan Various Service (Fourth Amendment), Rules, 2008. (ii) They shall come into force with immediate effect. 2. Amendment.- (I) After the existing last proviso to rule as mentioned in Column No. 3 against each of the Service Rules as mentioned in Column No.2 of the Schedule appended herewith, the following new proviso shall be added, namely :- “If a candidate would have been entitled in respect of his/her age for direct recruitment in any year in which no such recruitment was held, he/she shall be deemed to be eligible in the next following recruitment, if he/she is not overage by more than 3 years.” (ii) In the existing rule as mentioned in Column No.4 against each of the Service Rules as mentioned in Column No.2 of the Schedule appended herewith, the following new rule shall be added as mentioned in Column No.5 namely :- “Frequency of direct recruitment. - Direct recruitment to the post specified in the Schedule shall be held at least once a year unless the Government decides that a direct recruitment for any of these posts shall not be held in any particular year.” Schedule S. No. Name of Service Rules No. of Rule No. of Rule No. of New Rule 23. The Rajasthan Ayurvedic Unani, Homoeopathy and Naturopathy Service Rules, 1973 9 16 16A 9.1 As would be seen, the Rule/Notification also provide for cumulative age relaxation clause. Hence, the advertisement, to the extent is de hors the Rules, is liable to be struck down from the advertisement. Benefit of age relaxation for non advertisement of vacancy of 3 years and age relaxation for OBC category for 5 years and age relaxation for working under NRHM have to be all given to the petitioner cumulatively. 10. The State had lastly advertised the vacancies in year 2013 for the post of Unani Medical Officer and the State Government has themselves interpreted the Rule 9 of Rules of 1973 and granted both the relaxations. It is, therefore, estopped from deviating from its own previous view of the Rules without any amendment in Rules. 11. State cannot blow hot and cold, in as much as, vide an office order dated 12.08.2015 (Annex.11) benefit of age relaxation for more than 2 categories was rightly given to a person mentioned at Sr. no. 54 for the recruitment of 2013. 11. State cannot blow hot and cold, in as much as, vide an office order dated 12.08.2015 (Annex.11) benefit of age relaxation for more than 2 categories was rightly given to a person mentioned at Sr. no. 54 for the recruitment of 2013. Similarly, vide another office order dated 15.01.2016 (Annex.12) same benefit was accorded to persons mentioned at Sr. No. 19 & 26. 12. Aforesaid position is further fortified as the State also advertised the posts of Nursing Officer and Pharmacist in year 2023 and granted benefit of 5 years working experience in addition to relaxation for OBC Category. Annexure-13 & Annexure-14 in the connected CWP No.13771/2023 may be seen. 13. The judgment relied upon by the respondents in the case of Dhuleshwar Ghogra (supra), wherein Rule 265 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 was under consideration, therefore, is not applicable when there are different sets of Rules for Unani Medical Officer and secondly, the relaxation for non advertisement of vacancy was not considered in Dhuleshwar Ghogra judgment (supra). 14. The judgment rendered in Ashish Kumar (supra), was also referred and relied upon in another judgment in Malik Mazar Sultan (supra). Relevant extract of the judgment rendered in Ashish Kumar (supra) is reproduced as hereunder:- “Any part of the advertisement which is contrary to the statutory rules has to give way to the statutory prescription. Thus, looking to the qualification prescribed in the statutory rules, appellant fulfills the qualification and after being selected for the post denying appointment to him is arbitrary and illegal. It is well settled that when there is variance in the advertisement and in the statutory rules, it is statutory rules which take precedence. In this context, reference is made in judgment of this Court in the case of Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr. Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission & Ors., 2006 (9) SCC 507 . Paragraph 21 of the judgment lays down above proposition which is to the following effect: "21. The present controversy has arisen as the advertisement issued by PSC stated that the candidates who were within the age on 01.07.2001 and 01.07.2002 shall be treated within age for the examination. Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission & Ors., 2006 (9) SCC 507 . Paragraph 21 of the judgment lays down above proposition which is to the following effect: "21. The present controversy has arisen as the advertisement issued by PSC stated that the candidates who were within the age on 01.07.2001 and 01.07.2002 shall be treated within age for the examination. Undoubtedly, the excluded candidates were of eligible age as per the advertisements but the recruitment to the service can only be made in accordance with the Rules and the error, if any, in the advertisement cannot override the Rules and create a right in favour of a candidate if otherwise not eligible according to the Rules. The relaxation of age can be granted only of permissible under the Rules and not on the basis of the advertisement. If the interpretation of the Rules by PSC when it issued the advertisement was erroneous, no right can accrue on basis thereof. Therefore, the answer to the question would turn upon the interpretation of the Rules.” 15. I see no reason why view of law taken the aforesaid cases be not followed in the instant case. In the premise, the writ petitions are allowed. The provision in the advertisement in question for relaxation of age limit with non-cumulative effect is quashed and the official respondents are directed to give cumulative relaxation of age relaxation to the eligible petitioners with consequential benefits and consider their candidatures as per their merit position. 16. The relief granted herein is confined to only those candidates who are before this court and not those who acquiesced to their being held ineligible on account of being over aged.