M.N.Bhandari, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. These writ petitions pertain to selection to the post of LDC pursuant to Combined Competitive Examination of 2011. The selection aforesaid is divided in two phases namely; Phase -I and Phase -II.
(2.) A litigation came earlier before this court when candidates were not allowed to appear in Phase -II Examination after declaration of result of Phase -I. It is precisely for want of 40% marks in each paper of Phase -I Examination. This court considered the issue in reference to the rule applicable herein and allowed the petitions with many -fold directions in the case of Devender Singh Chauhan V/S Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2608/2012, decided on 02.04.2012. It is informed that appeal against the said judgment was not referred, rather it was implemented by the respondents. The second litigation came on the same issue regarding post of Stenographer and therein bunch of writ petitions led by Amarchand Prajapati V/S State of Rajasthan & Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8265/2012, were decided on 29.05.2012. Therein, the judgment was implemented by the respondents by treating it to be in rem without forcing candidate individually to approach this court. The outcome of the judgment was that if candidate is having aggregate 40 marks in Phase -I Examination, he should be allowed to appear in Phase -II Examination for selection to the post of LDC.
(3.) AFTER the judgment, few more petitions came before this court when Phase -II examination was over and even in few cases, the result was also declared followed by appointment. The writ petitions therein were dismissed on the ground of delay. The petitioners preferred review petition along with present petitions. It is precisely on the ground that judgment in the case of Stenographer namely; Amarchand Prajapati (supra) has been treated in rem by the RPSC then as to why the judgment in the case of Devender Singh Chauhan (supra) has not been given same treatment. The notices on the review petitions were issued and in the meanwhile, the RPSC revised the result of Phase -I Examination of LDC due to discrepancy in the answer of certain questions. On the revision of result, RPSC again called few candidates to appear in Phase -II Examination in reference to the same selection. The petitioners and review petitioners are those who are having aggregate 40% marks in Phase -I Examination thus as per judgment in the case of Devender Singh Chauhan (supra) so as Amarchand Prajapati (supra), they are entitled to appear in Phase -II Examination.;