SIDHU, J. - (1.) THIS judgment will deal with all the thirteen connected appeals listed above. These are special appeal under sec. 18, Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949. They have been filed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short the Commission), from the judgment, dated, March 29, 1982, by a learned Single Judge of this Court, thereby allowing 18 connected writ petitions and consequently issuing several directions to the Commission commanding it inter alia, to call the writ petitioners for interview with a view to adjudging their suitability for appointment to certain posts, regardless of their failure to qualify for such interview in the written examination held for the purpose.
(2.) THE material facts are not in dispute. THEse may be shortly stated herewith reference to the writ petitions of Miss Damyanti Dadich as typical of all other petitions. Miss Damyanti Dadich who will here in-after be referred to as the petitioner, holds a first class Master's Degree and a Ph. D. degree, earned from the University of Rajasthan in 1973 and 1979, respectively. She applied for the post of a lecturer in Hindi in response to an advertisement published by the Commission on April 4, 1980, inviting applications for direct recruitment to such posts in several subjects, including Hindi, in accordance with the Rajasthan Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules 1971 (hereinafter to be called the Rules ). THE advertisement made it clear that in the event of the number of applications being too large the Commission may, if it considered it necessary to do so, hold a written examination by way of a screening test and call for interview only those examinees who pass the examination scoring such marks as may be prescribed by the Commission. All the petitioner in the 18 writ petitions took the written examination held in October, 1981, but failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks with the result that they were not called for interview. In March, 1982, when the Commission had either already prepared or was in the process of preparing the list of candidates whom they considered suitable for appointment to these posts, the petitioner and others with similar qualifications, filed their separate writ petitions for orders, inter alia, quashing the result of the written screening test held in October, 1981, for perpetual injunction restraining the Commission from holding such tests in future and from preparing any panel and recommending any names for appointment to these posts on the basis of the process of selection commencing with the advertisement, dated April 4, 1980 and ending with the interviews, held on the basis of the impugned screening test, in January, 1982. The petitioners also prayed for mandamus directing the Commission to call them for interview for adjudging their suitability for various posts regardless of their failure to qualify for such interviews in the written examination. The petitioner pleaded as many as twenty two grounds in the writ petition in support her claim to the aforementioned relief and other relief specified in clauses (a) to (h) of the prayer clause. A perusal of the impugned judgment made by the learned Single Judge would, however show that only three grounds were urged before him on behalf of all the writ petitioners including the petitioner. The three grounds urged before the learned Single Judge were: - (i) The academic qualification, prescribed by the University of Rajasthan under the Rules, and advertised by the Commission, would on their true construction, reveal that candidates, like the petitioners, who hold Master's degree with a minimum of 54% marks, and a Ph. D. /m. Phil/ M. Litt. degree, are entitled to be called for interview straight-away, and that they cannot be lawfully clubbed with candidates holding a Master degree alone and cannot be compelled to take and pass the written examination by way of a screening test as a pre-condition to qualify for the interview. (ii) The advertisement dated April 4, 1980, was published for the purpose of making recruitment against the number of vacancies anticipated to occur from January 1, 1980 to December 31, 1980. The process of selection by the Commission was required by law to be completed within that year. No selection by the Commission for filling in the number of vacancies anticipated for the 12 months of the year 1980 is legally permissible during the year 1981 or any subsequent year. (iii) There are posts of Lecturers in some other subjects to which recruitment is made on the basis of interviews alone, and no written examination is held to ascertain the desirability or otherwise of calling a candidate for interview. The insistence of the Commission to require the petitioners to pass the written examination, in their respective subjects with certain a minimum marks as a pre-condition to qualify for the interview, offends against the petitioner's right to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The State of Rajasthan and the Commission contested these writ petitions and raised certain preliminary objections to their maintainability. First, they pleaded that the petitioners took the written examination, by way of a screening test with full knowledge of the syllabus and that it was only after their failure to score the qualifying marks in that examination that they rushed to the court to prevent other candidates from getting their appointments as Lecturers for which they have been found suitable as a result of a long and laborious process of selection including written examination and interview. It is submitted that the petitioners are estopped from challenging the validity of the written examination and its result which indicated their unsuitabillity for the posts in question at the very there should of the process of selection. Second, they pleaded that these writ petitions were pre-mature inasmuch as the Commission, which is the recommending authority, had not yet made any recommendations, and that even after their recommendations, the Government may or may not appoint the candidates recommended by them.
(3.) THE third and last objection raised is regarding non-joinder of necessary parties. It is contended that all the candidates who have qualified for interview in the written examination are necessary parties, because if the writ petitions are allowed, their rights will be adversely affected. The respondents also contested the writ petitions on merits. They explained that a written examination, by way of a screening test is one of the modes of selecting the most suitable candidates for such posts and that less suitable candidates get weeded out in the written examination itself. No illegality is involved in holding such examinations. Whether to hold or not to hold such a written screening test as was held in October 1981, is a matter depending upon the discretion of the Commission. The respondents pleaded that the Commission had made it clear in the relevant advertisement itself that such a test would be half depending upon the number of applications received and the decision of the Commission in that behalf. The Commission decided to hold the written screening test in the instant case after careful consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances including the facts that the number of applications received for the posts was too large. The respondents denied that Ph D. /m. Phil/m. Litt. or any other recognised degree beyond the Master's level is an absolute academic qualifications for any of the posts of lecturers involved in these petitions. The requirement in the Rules regarding a degree beyond the Master's level is subject to some exceptions and reservations. The respondents explained that a Master's degree with a minimum of 54% marks is the minimum qualification prescribed by the University of Rajasthan for the post of Lecturer by direct recruitment and that a candidate possessing a degree beyond the Master's level may, all other factors being equal, be more suitable than a candidate possessing a Master's degree alone, but if he found less suitable from the stand-point of other relevant factors, the mere possession by him of a degree beyond the Master's level will not make up for his deficiency in other factors. The respondents added in this context that the petitioners, who had taken the written examination in their respective subjects with advance notice of the syllabus for the examination, failed to score even the minimum number of marks which, in the opinion of the Commission; was the bare minimal test of their suitability. Such candidates, notwithstanding the fact that they possessed degrees beyond the Master's level were found unsuitable as compared to those who had scored the qualifying marks for interview. The Commission made it clear in their reply that in the interviews as a result of the screening test the Commission invariably gives some weight age to a candidate possessing a degree beyond the Master's level as compared to a candidate possessing a Master's degree alone. ;