ORDER : 1. Defects pointed out by the Office in the appeals are waived. 2. Heard on CMCW No.876/2025 in SAW No.278/2023, CMCW No.648/2025 in SAW No.144/2023, CMCW No.646/2025 in SAW No.164/2023, CMCW No.644/2025 in SAW No.167/2023, CMCW No.647/2025 in SAW No.237/2023, CMCW No.350/2025 in SAW No.302/2025, CMCW No.368/2025 in SAW No.308/2025, CMCW No.370/2025 in SAW No.309/2025, CMCW No.371/2025 in SAW No.310/2025, CMCW No.372/2025 in SAW No.312/2025, CMCW No.373/2025 in SAW No.313/2025, CMCW No.374/2025 in SAW No.314/2025, CMCW No.377/2025 in SAW No.315/2025, CMCW No.378/2025 in SAW No.316/2025, CMCW No.379/2025 in SAW No.317/2025, CMCW No.380/2025 in SAW No.318/2025, CMCW No.381/2025 in SAW No.319/2025, CMCW No.382/2025 in SAW No.320/2025, CMCW No.383/2025 in SAW No.321/2025, CMCW No.384/2025 in SAW No.322/2025, CMCW No.385/2025 in SAW No.323/2025, CMCW No.386/2025 in SAW No.324/2025, CMCW No.388/2025 in SAW No.325/2025, CMCW No.390/2025 in SAW No.326/2025, CMCW No.391/2025 in SAW No.327/2025, CMCW No.393/2025 in SAW No.328/2025, CMCW No.394/2025 in SAW No.329/2025, CMCW No.395/2025 in SAW No.330/2025, CMCW No.397/2025 in SAW No.331/2025, CMCW No.398/2025 in SAW No.332/2025, CMCW No.399/2025 in SAW No.333/2025, CMCW No.401/2025 in SAW No.334/2025, CMCW No.403/2025 in SAW No.335/2025, CMCW No.404/2025 in SAW No.336/2025, CMCW No.405/2025 in SAW No.337/2025, CMCW No.406/2025 in SAW No.338/2025, CMCW No.407/2025 in SAW No.339/2025, CMCW No.412/2025 in SAW No.340/2025, CMCW No.413/2025 in SAW No.341/2025, CMCW No.414/2025 in SAW No.342/2025, CMCW No.415/2025 in SAW No.343/2025, CMCW No.416/2025 in SAW No.344/2025, CMCW No.417/2025 in SAW No.345/2025, CMCW No.418/2025 in SAW No.346/2025, CMCW No.419/2025 in SAW No.347/2025, CMCW No.420/2025 in SAW No.348/2025, CMCW No.428/2025 in SAW No.356/2025, CMCW No.429/2025 in SAW No.357/2025, CMCW No.433/2025 in SAW No.359/2025, CMCW No.435/2025 in SAW No.360/2025, CMCW No.437/2025 in SAW No.362/2025, CMCW No.438/2025 in SAW No.363/2025, CMCW No.452/2025 in SAW No.377/2025, CMCW No.455/2025 in SAW No.380/2025, CMCW No.460/2025 in SAW No.385/2025, CMCW No.473/2025 in SAW No.401/2025, CMCW No.476/2025 in SAW No.405/2025, CMCW No.478/2025 in SAW No.406/2025, CMCW No.479/2025 in SAW No.407/2025, CMCW No.480/2025 in SAW No.408/2025, CMCW No.481/2025 in SAW No.409/2025, CMCW No.482/2025 in SAW No.410/2025, CMCW No.483/2025 in SAW No.412/2025, CMCW No.484/2025 in SAW No.413/2025, CMCW No.485/2025 in SAW No.414/2025, CMCW No.486/2025 in SAW No.415/2025, CMCW No.487/2025 in SAW No.416/2025, CMCW No.488/2025 in SAW No.417/2025, CMCW No.489/2025 in SAW No.418/2025, CMCW No.499/2025 in SAW No.428/2025, CMCW No.502/2025 in SAW No.431/2025, CMCW No.524/2025 in SAW No.465/2025, CMCW No.562/2025 in SAW No.543/2025, CMCW No.789/2025 in SAW No.893/2025. 3. 3. In the aforementioned cases, appellants have filed applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the appeals. 4. The delay in filing the appeals is condoned. 5. These appeals have been filed by the appellant-State challenging the order dated 10.02.2022, whereby the writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioners (to be referred as ‘respondents’ in the appeal) were allowed. 6. The brief facts of the case are that in pursuance to the Advertisement dated 18.06.2018 issued by the respondents (to be referred as ‘ appellants ’ in the appeal) for appointment on the post of Health Worker (Female) under the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (for short ‘ the Rules of 1965 ’). The respondents have applied for the said post. The qualification provided for the said post as mentioned in the Advertisement reads as under:- “X standard with Auxiliary Nurse Midwifery/Health Worker Female Course passed and registered in Rajasthan Nursing Council as B Grade Nurse.” 7. The candidature of the respondent was rejected by the appellants on the ground of not having the requisite qualification as prescribed under the Advertisement as well as under the Rules of 1965. The various writ petitions filed before this Court as well as at Principal Seat at Jodhpur were allowed and the appeals filed against the said order were also dismissed by the Principal Seat at Jodhpur as well as by this Court. The learned Single Judge of this Court has allowed the writ petition relying upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Ms. Firdos Tarannum & Anr. (D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.534/2005) decided on 12.01.2022. 8. The appellants-State of Rajasthan preferred an SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Ms. Firdos Tarannum (Civil Appeal No.2646/2024 @ SLP (C) Nos.11496/2023) as well as in the case of The State of Rajashtan & Ors. Vs. Gomi (Civil Appeal No.6559/2023) . Both these appeals were decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 14.02.2024. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the special appeals filed on behalf of State of Rajasthan, so far as the special appeals with regard to Ms. Vs. Gomi (Civil Appeal No.6559/2023) . Both these appeals were decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 14.02.2024. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the special appeals filed on behalf of State of Rajasthan, so far as the special appeals with regard to Ms. Firdos Tarannum (supra) is concerned, the said matter relates to Teacher Grade-III (Urdu Subject). However, the special appeals relates to Gomi (supra) is concerned, the issue in the said SLP relates to appointment on the post of Health Worker (Female). 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while disposing of the appeal of Gomi (supra), observed as under:- “3. The learned Single Judge, by the judgment and order dated 20.08.2018, dismissed the petition. We find from the order of the learned Single Judge that he has not gone into the question whether the appellants were under an obligation to accept the application form of the respondent and whether the respondent was eligible in terms of the qualification mentioned in the advertisement. Only by referring earlier decision of the same Court in the case of Anand Badan, the learned Judge dismissed the petition. The impugned order has been passed in an appeal preferred by the respondent before the Division Bench. Again, there is no consideration of the merits of the case of the respondent. Based on a decision in the case of the State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Firdos Tarannum and Anr. in Civil Special Appeal No. 521 of 2005 decided on 12.01.2022, the appeal was disposed of by directing the appellants to offer an appointment to the respondent. Even against said decision dated 12.01.2022, in the case of Firdos Tarannum(supra), the State of Rajasthan filed C.A. No. 2646 of 2024 in SLP(C) No. 11496 of 2023, which is dismissed today by a separate order. We find in that case, the applicant possessed STC qualification of a recognition institution as mentioned in the advertisement. Moreover, that was a case of appointment to the post of Urdu Teacher, and that was not a case where even an application made pursuant to the advertisement was not accepted. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent tried to submit that in terms of the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge, the respondent was allowed to participate in the selection process, and the respondent’s name was included in the merit list. 5. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent tried to submit that in terms of the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge, the respondent was allowed to participate in the selection process, and the respondent’s name was included in the merit list. 5. It is well settled that the interim order merges with the final order. Neither the learned Single nor the Division Bench has held any adjudication, firstly, on the question of whether the concerned authorities wrongfully denied the opportunity the respondent to file an application form and whether the respondent was eligible in terms of the advertisement. 6. As noted earlier, on facts, the case of Firdos Tarannum (supra) was different. In the present case, there was an initial hurdle in the way of the respondent that her form was not accepted. 7. In the absence of any adjudication made both by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench, we have no option but to remand the writ petition to the learned Single Judge. The reason is that for the first time in this appeal, we cannot make an adjudication on several factual aspects. The other reason is that if there is a proper adjudication made by the learned Single Judge, a remedy of appeal before the Division Bench will be available to the aggrieved parties.” 10. While disposing off the SLP, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the learned Single Judge to decide the matter afresh on merits. 11. When the matters were pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the learned Single Judge of this Court decided S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1457/2021 ( Jahida Salma Vs. State of Rajasthan ) and other connected matters vide order dated 10.02.2022 relying upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Ms. Firdos Tarannum (supra). 12. In compliance of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10748/2018 ( Gomi Vs. The State of Rajasthan ) was again decided by the learned Single Bench at Principal Seat at Jodhpur dated 06.08.2024 relying upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Jahida Salma (supra), however, the learned Single Judge decided the case of Jahida Salma (supra) relying upon the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ms.Firdos Tarannum (supra). 13. 13. In our considered view, the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition of Gomi dated 06.08.2024 has not considered the merits of the case afresh, as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6559/2023 (The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Gomi) with regard to qualification of Health Worker (Female). 14. Learned AAG further submits that neither the learned Single Judge of this Court while deciding the matter of (Jahida Salma (supra) Bench at Jaipur nor learned Single Bench at Jodhpur has considered the matter independently on merits with regard to qualification for the post in question as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of The State of Rajsthan & Ors. Vs. Gomi. 15. Learned AAG further submits that the learned Single Judge has not considered the required qualification for the post in question, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 16. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 17. These appeals filed on behalf of the appellants-State deserve to be allowed for the reasons:- firstly, the learned Single Judge decided all the writ petitions by relying upon the judgments passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ms. Firdos Tarannum (supra). The said matter was challenged by the appellants-State of Rajasthan before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, the appeal was dismissed, as the matter relates to appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Urdu); secondly the Hon’ble Supreme Court while remanding the matter of Gomi (supra) to the learned Single Judge, where the post in question i.e. Health Worker (Female) was same as involved herein, directed to reconsider the matter on merits specifically on the issue as to whether the Adeeb qualification is a proper qualification for appointment to the post of Health Worker (Female); thirdly in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not considered the provisions of the Rules of 1965, as there is no clause providing for equivalence between the Adeeb qualification and the 10 th Standard under the said Rules. 18. In view of the above discussion, the appeals are allowed. The order dated 10.02.2022 is set aside. 18. In view of the above discussion, the appeals are allowed. The order dated 10.02.2022 is set aside. The matters are remanded back to the learned Single Judge for deciding afresh in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The State of Rajsthan & Ors. Vs. Gomi (Civil Appeal No.6559/2023) 19. All the pending applications also stand disposed of. 20. A copy of this order be separately placed in each connected file.