SHARMA, J. - (1.) SINCE all these writ petitions relate to Advertisement dated October 1, 2001 notified by Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short `rpsc') for the direct recruitment to the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector, they are taken up together for the disposal.
(2.) CONTEXTUAL facts depict that as many as 71 vacancies for male and 31 for female were advertised by the RPSC on October 1, 2001 for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector. Pursuant to the advertisement all the petitioners submitted applications and were allowed to appear in the written examination that was qualified by all the petitioners. The candidature of the petitioner was rejected by the RPSC on the ground that on the last date of submission of application form i. e. November 19, 2001 the petitioners did not posses eligibility requirement incorporated in the advertisement. This act of respondent RPSC in rejecting the candidature of the petitioners has been assailed in these writ petitions. In the return submitted by the respondents it has been canvassed that all the petitioners ought to have possessed the eligibility qualifications on the last date of submission of application forms and since the petitioners failed to establish their eligibility on the last date of submission of application form, their candidature was rightly rejected. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and scanned the material on record. A look at the advertisement dated October 1, 2001 demonstrates that in column No. 13 that relates to `educational Qualification', it was indicated that all those candidates who did not posses required educational qualification could also appear in the written examination but they would have to submit required eligibility certificate prior to start of interview. Undeniably all the petitioners did posses the required eligibility much before holding the interview. Learned counsel for the respondents made attempt to persuade me for giving narrow interpretation to column 13 of the advertisement, but I find myself unable to agree with the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents. When the candidates who did not posses `educational qualification' on the last date of submission of the application form, were permitted to file eligibility certificate prior to start of interview, how in such a situation the other similarly situated candidates could be treated differently. I see no justification on the part of RPSC in adopting double standard and rejecting the candidature of the petitioners who were possessing eligibility criteria on the date of interview. The act of RPSC in discriminating the petitioner with other similarly situated candidates is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
(3.) FINDING prima facie case in favour of the petitioners this Court vide interim orders permitted the petitioners to provisionally appear in the interview but the result of the interview was ordered to be kept in sealed cover. Since I find merit in the writ petitions, the RPSC may now be asked to declare the result of interview. For these reasons I allow the writ petitions and direct the respondent RPSC to declare the result of interview of the petitioners and make recommendation to appoint them on the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector, if they are otherwise found suitable for giving appointment. The respondents shall ensure the compliance of this order within sixty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. .;