Amitava Roy, C.J. - (1.) A writ in the nature of mandamus and/or order has been sought for to direct the respondent No. 1 herein to call the petitioner for interview in the process of recruitment to the Cadre of District Judge in the Rajasthan Judicial Service initiated vide the notification dt. 19.07.2011 (Annexure -1 of the writ petition) and to appoint her in the event of being adjudged suitable therefor. A direction to the respondent No. 1 to declare the marks of the last candidate called for interview in each category, is also sought for. We have heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. V.K. Sharma for the respondent No. 1.
(2.) THE pleaded case of the petitioner, in short, is that she is an advocate practicing at Jaipur, and that, since February 2009 has been discharging her duties as the Deputy Government Counsel. She had earlier appeared in the written examination held for direct recruitment to the Cadre of District Judge on 30.6.2010 and being successful was called for the interview. However, the said process was cancelled as the required number of candidates in the ratio of 1:3 were not available for the interview. Subsequent thereto, by the notification dt. 19.7.2011 referred to hereinabove, a fresh process was initiated for appointment by direct recruitment to 39 vacant posts in the Cadre of District Judge, out of which, horizontal reservation for women candidates was provided against 10 posts. Six posts therefrom are to be filled up by general category women candidates. She, having offered her candidature, was allowed to appear in the written examination, and her allotted roll number was 3443. 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 133 marks in aggregate. The notice dt. 6.8.2012 declaring the results, also contained the roll numbers of the candidates eligible for being called for the interview. The petitioner however, has not been called for the interview. According to the petitioner, in the list of the candidates construed to be eligible to be called for interview, 17 women candidates from the general category and 5 and 1 candidate(s) from the OBC and SC category (women candidates) respectively, have been called. Referring to Rule 40 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (for short, hereinafter referred to as '2010 Rules/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. That her application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act 2005') to inspect her answer -sheet for Paper Law -II and other informations had been rejected by the State Public Information Commissioner on 27.09.2012 and 09.10.2012, and that, her appeals have also been dismissed on 06.11.2012, has been mentioned as well. 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 respondent No. 1, in its reply, has asserted in particular, that though the petitioner has passed the written examination, she has failed to secure minimum qualifying marks as fixed by the Court in terms of Rule 40(2) of the 2010 Rules, to be called for the interview. While contending that a candidate securing minimum pass marks in the written examination per se does not become entitled to be called for the interview, unless he/she has also secured the qualifying marks as fixed by the Court, the answering respondent has also clarified that vis   -vis her applications seeking information, she had been informed that the same can be provided only after the final results of the selection are declared. That her appeal was answered similarly, has been mentioned as well. According to the answering respondent, disclosure of marks obtained by the candidates, as sought for by the petitioner, was not permissible having regard to the confidentiality of the process. The grounds taken by the petitioner, in endorsement of the challenge, were refuted on this premise.;