AMITAVA ROY, J. - (1.) IN the instant petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent to publish the list of the candidates called for interview categorywise and also to call her for interview for appointment to the post of District Judge Cadre.
(2.) HEARD Mr.J.D.S.Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioner. For the order proposed to be passed in this petition, it is not considered necessary to issue any formal notice to the respondent. The pleaded case of the petitioner, in short, is that she is an advocate having enrolment No.R/796/1997. Pursuant to notification dated 19.7.2011 inviting applications from the Advocates for filling up 39 vacant posts in the cadre of District Judge by direct recruitment in the Rajasthan Judicial Service in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (As amended in 2011) (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), the petitioner being eligible submitted her application alongwith requisite documents. Out of 39 vacant posts advertised, horizontal reservation for women candidates was provided against 10 posts. Six posts therefrom are to be filled up by general category women candidates. The petitioner was allowed to appear in the written examination and her roll number was 4703. The written examination was held on 5.5.2012 and 6.5.2012 and the results thereof were declared on 6.8.2012 and she was declared to have passed the examination having secured 122 marks in aggregate. According to the petitioner, the respondent declared the result of 384 candidates, out of which, 100 candidates were called for interview scheduled to be held from 14.5.2013 to 24.5.2013. Though she was found successful in the written examination, she has not been called for the interview. Referring to Rule 40 of the Rules, the petitioner has asserted that in view of 39 vacancies advertised, 117 (39 x 3) candidates ought to have been called for the interview. To be specific, according to her, as six posts had been reserved for the women candidates of the general category, 18 such candidates ought to have been called for the interview, instead of 17, as done. She has elaborated further to aver that against 10 posts for which horizontal reservation has been accorded to the women candidates, in fact, only 23 have been called for the interview. Contending that in terms of Rule 40, it is mandatory to call for interview all the candidates securing minimum qualifying marks in the written examination in the ratio of 1:3, the petitioner has sought for the reliefs as referred to hereinabove.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has emphatically argued that not only in terms of Rule 40 of the 2010 Rules, candidates securing the minimum pass marks in the written examination on the basis of 1:3 ratio, ought to have been obligatorily called for the interview in order of merit, the fixation of qualifying marks and application thereof to shortlist the candidates who had passed the written examination without disclosing the same in the advertisement has vitiated the process for lack of transparency and fairness. He insisted that fixation of the qualifying marks on the eve of the interview amounts to changing of the rules of the game after the initiation thereof and is wholly illegal, unfair and arbitrary. The pleaded facts together with the documents on record alongwith the arguments advanced have received the due attention of this Court.;