Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3109 Court No. - 19 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 241 of 2024 Applicant :- Shiv Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Med. Health And Family Welfare Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Mishra Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. (Delay Condonation Application) Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned State Counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2. Office has reported a delay of 408 days in filing the review application as on 13th December, 2024. Despite time having been granted, no objections to the application have been filed till date. Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of application is sufficient and as such delay in filing review application is condoned. (Memo of Review Application) 1. Review application has been filed seeking review of judgment and order dated 3rd October, 2023 passed in Writ A No. 4937 of 2023. 2. Learned counsel for review petitioner had submitted that earlier petitioners had filed the aforesaid writ petition challenging the advertisement dated 8th June, 2023 for selection on the post of X-ray Technician primarily on the ground that they having been employed with the department concerned on contractual basis earlier, were not provided any weightage for the same in direct recruitment for the said post. 3. It is seen from material on record that the aforesaid petition was disposed of by means of order dated 3rd October, 2023 granting benefit to petitioners of earlier judgment and order dated 5th April, 2019 passed in writ petition No. 1664 (S/S) of 2018, Dr. Kartikey Verma and others versus State of U.P. and others in which in paragraph 10 thereof, directions have been issued to the State Government for providing age relaxation and weightage etc. and in case petitioners are qualified and have been continuously working, they would have legitimate expectation of continuance of service and therefore the State Government was directed to formulate a policy regarding age relaxation and some weightage so that the petitioners would be able to compete with fresh pass out candidates. 4. It is thus evident that twin directions have been issued by this Court in order dated 5th April, 2019, the benefit of which has been extended to petitioners pertaining firstly to formulation of a policy providing age relaxation and weightage and secondly, for consideration of petitioners in terms of such weightage provided. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that in pursuance of such directions, the U.P. X-Ray Technician Service (First Amendment) Rules, 2024 have been notified on 16th October, 2024 whereby such weightage and relaxation have been implemented. 6. Learned counsel for petitioners' apprehension that petitioners would not be granted benefit of such rules therefore appears to be clearly unfounded in view of the fact that there is no specific denial by the opposite parties in writing that such benefit would not be extended to them. 7. In view of such observation made herein above, there does not appear to be any occasion to review the order under challenge. 8. The review application therefore being misconceived is dismissed. Order Date :- 17.1.2025 prabhat Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench