Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, in the instant writ application, has prayed for the following relief(s): - - "i) the impugned result dated 25.02.2013 and impugned action of the respondents in not awarding appropriate marks in interview may kindly be declared illegal and arbitrary and therefore same may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice. ii) the respondents may kindly be directed by issuing of writ, order or direction in the nature thereof to conduct re interview of the petitioner or at least award him the proper marks in interview in the interest of justice; iii) the respondents may kindly be directed by issuing writ of mandamus, order or direction nature thereof, to produce entire record of interview before this Hon'ble court; iv) the respondents may kindly be directed by issuing of writ, order or direction in the nature thereof to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Sub -Inspector with all consequential benefits. v) any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly also be passed in favour of the petitioner; and vi) the cost of the writ petition may kindly also be allowed in favour of the petitioner."
(2.) BRIEFLY , the skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised herein needs to be first noticed. The petitioner participated in the recruitment process in response to the advertisement dated 25th November, 2010, issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission', for short), for the post of Sub -Inspector. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that he secured 145.37 marks in Hindi, and 135.66 marks in General Knowledge, but was accorded only 16 marks in the Interview. Thus, the petitioner despite securing 297.03 marks in aggregate, could not find place in the merit list of the selected candidates. According to the petitioner, some of the candidates, who secured less marks than the petitioner in the Written Examination as well as Physical Efficiency Test, were able to secure very high marks in Interview, whereas the petitioner has not been accorded proper marks he deserved despite his better performance, as would be reflected from the marks secured in Written Examination. Hence, the impugned result dated 25th February, 2013, suffers with the vice of arbitrariness, illegality and malice. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, strenuously argued that some of the candidates, namely, Maya Saini with Roll Number 239403 and merit number 1648, and Annu Gurjar with Roll Number 192786 and merit number 1547; secured less marks in Written Examination, were able to secure 24 and 37 marks in the Interview out of 50, and this fact itself was indicative of arbitrariness of the Interview Board while awarding marks in the Interview. The learned counsel would further submit that there are some other candidates, who neither performed well in the Written Examination nor in the Physical Efficiency Test, yet they have been awarded much higher marks in Interview, which further proved the fact of arbitrariness and colourable exercise of powers by the Interview Board. Moreover, initially, a list of about 1500 candidates was issued, who were to be called for Interview. However, later on only 220 candidates were called for the Interview. Out of 220 candidates 38 candidates were absent, and thus, only 182 candidates participated wherein 173 were declared successful and have been selected. The list of candidates called for Interview was curtailed to 220 candidates only by enhancing the marks of the Written Examination. A list of 215 candidates (Annexure -5) has been placed on record, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, was downloaded from the website of the respondent -Commission. The petitioner along with other candidates secured much higher marks, as would be reflected from Column Number 1 and 2 of the list (Annexure -5), wherein the marks were accorded according to the model answer key dated 19th October, 2012. Marks of the petitioner and other candidates were reduced in view of revision of the marks as per revised answer key dated 5th December, 2012. As a result of revision of marks, as per revised answer key dated 5th December, 2012, several other candidates were accorded higher marks whereas there was no change in the marks of the petitioner, which is another factor indicative of policy of 'pick and choose' adopted by the respondents in order to extend additional advantage to those candidates whose marks were enhanced/increased.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance, perused the materials available on record.;