Order : 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 14.11.2014, passed by the respondents by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service from the post of Safai Karamchari as he was having two additional issue after the cut off date. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that third issue was given to the elder brother through adoption and this fact was not disclosed at the time of submission of the application form. Counsel submits that this fact was overlooked by the respondents while passing the impugned order and his services have terminated without holding any enquiry. Counsel submits that the impugned order dated 14.11.2014 was passed without there being any provisions under the Rajasthan Municipalities (Safai Karamchari Service) Rules, 2012 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2012’) for the same. Counsel submits that there was no such condition under the aforesaid rules that having additional issue is a disqualification. Counsel submits that the controversy involved in this petition has already been set at rest by the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of State of Rajasthan and Anr. Vs. Smt. Indira Devi :D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 703/2016 dated 25.10.2016. Counsel submits that thereafter, an office order was issued by the respondents by which the provisions of disqualification of having more than two issues was deleted by the Department of Local Bodies vide order dated 09.10.2020, hence under these circumstances, the order impugned is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 3. Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that instant case is not only a case of disqualification on having more than two issues after the cut off date but also a case of suppression of material facts by way of filing false affidavit. Counsel submits that considering the above factual aspect of the matter, the order impugned was passed and a decision was taken to dismiss the petitioner from service, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner was having four issues and this fact was not disclosed by the petitioner. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner was having four issues and this fact was not disclosed by the petitioner. Now the question which remains for consideration before this Court is that whether this can be a ground for dismissing the petitioner from service. 6. The controversy involved in this petition has already been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Indira Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2703/2015, decided on 05.11.2015 and the same was set at rest by upholding the said decision by the Division Bench of this Court while deciding D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 703/2016. The Division Bench of this Court was of the view that there was no such provisions under the Rules of 2012.The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that:- “After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that if any condition is incorporated in the advertisement contrary to rules, such condition is required to be ignored because the appointments are required to be given strictly in accordance with Rules and eligibility provided in the Rules. Hereinthis case, admittedly, no such disqualification is provided in the Rules of 2012 under which post of Safai Karamchari falls, therefore the disqualification upon which the appointment is denied to the petitioner is not sustainable in the eye of law, therefore this writ petition is allowed. The reason given by the respondents in the information(Annex. 6) rejecting the candidature of the petitioner is hereby quashed and respondents directed to treat the petitioner in service as Safai Karamchari.” 7. The aforesaid judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Indira Devi (Supra) was followed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mahendra Kumar Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10775/2015 and it has been observed in para 5 to 7 which reads as under:- “5. Declining the intra-court appeal, the Division Bench observed that Rule 6 of the Rules of 2012, prescribed the eligibility and qualifications, which conferred eligibility on the candidate(s) to be considered for appointment. while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10775/2015 and it has been observed in para 5 to 7 which reads as under:- “5. Declining the intra-court appeal, the Division Bench observed that Rule 6 of the Rules of 2012, prescribed the eligibility and qualifications, which conferred eligibility on the candidate(s) to be considered for appointment. The Division Bench held that a condition, much less attaching disqualification, which did not exist under the Rules of 2012; could not have been introduced in the advertisement, observing thus: “The advertisement was never placed before the learned Single Judge by the parties. Despite more than one adjournment no counter affidavit was filed by the Appellants. A copy of the advertisement has however been placed before us in appeal. Rule 6 prescribes the eligibility, qualifications fulfillment of which entitles a candidate to be considered. There is no statutory incorporation in Rule 6 with regard to any ineligibility of a candidate if a third child had been born after 01.06.2002. If the eligibility is prescribed in statutory Rules, those who do not fulfill the same are ineligible. If a candidate fulfills the eligibility requirements in Rule 6, she cannot be declared ineligible by incorporation of any clause in the advertisement beyond the statutory requirement of Rule 6. There is no error in the finding of the learned Single Judge that such a condition could not be incorporated in the advertisement beyond statutory provisions. It is not the case of the Appellants that even any executive order had been issued to that effect before the ineligibility clause was incorporated in the advertisement. It is not open for the Appellants to urge that any condition incorporated in the advertisement contrary to the statutory requirement, would still bind the applicant unless there was a challenge to the advertisement. The fact that the candidate may have applied notwithstanding the stipulations in the advertisement cannot confer legality on the condition prescribed beyond the Rules. We therefore find no infirmity in the order of learned Single Judge. The Respondent is now required to be considered for appointment in accordance with the offer dated 17.12.2013. Reliance on Javed (supra) is misconceived as the challenge related to the vires of the provisions of Sections 175(1)(q) and 177(1) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 incorporating a statutory requirement with regard to those having more than two children and which is not the case presently. Reliance on Javed (supra) is misconceived as the challenge related to the vires of the provisions of Sections 175(1)(q) and 177(1) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 incorporating a statutory requirement with regard to those having more than two children and which is not the case presently. The appeal is dismissed.” 6. In view of the above, the instant batch of writ applications stands allowed. 7. The State-respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners ignoring the condition of birth of third child after 1st June, 2002; in case, the petitioners are found otherwise eligible for appointment. Appointment may be accorded to them as expeditiously as possible. Compliance of this order be ensured within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is presented.” 8. Since the controversy involved in this petition has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Indira Devi (Supra) and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mahendra Kumar (Supra) , this Court finds no valid reasons to take a different view. 9. The present writ petition stands disposed of and the impugned order passed by the respondents is quashed and set aside. 10. Since the petitioner has expired in the year 2020 during the pendency of this petition, the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner would get the terminal benefits in accordance with law. 11. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.