- (1.) In I.A.No.34704/2015: Though the matters come upon an interim application(s) under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, seeking vacation of the ex-parte interim order dated 28th August, 2014, but having regard to the nature of controversy involved herein, the writ applications have been taken up for final disposal at this stage, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioners, in the instant writ applications, are aggrieved of the action of the repondents, for they were not permitted to participate in the Phase-II of the recruitment process, for which an examination of Phase-I, was conducted on 3rd May, 2014, and Phase-II, was scheduled to be held on 28th July, 2014, and therefore, instituted the present petitions praying for the following relief(s): Prayer clause in SBCWP No.8966/2014: "a. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, action of the respondent, i.e. changing/varying eligibility criteria i.e. minimum 40 marks in each section of papar-I & II of Phase-I Examination, for qualifying for and for appearing in, Phase-II examination, which has been changed at the time of holding examination of Phase-I and at the time of declaring result ignoring the condition in Explanation-5 of syllabus for the post of Junior Assistant (Annexure-4), may kindly be declared illegal, arbitrarily, unjustified and unconstitutional. b. By an appropriate writ, order or direction respondent RIICO may kindly be directed to adhere to the qualification laid down earlier (in Explanation-5 of Syllabus for the post of Junior Assistant-Annexure-4) and consequently petitioner may kindly be treated as qualified for Phase-II Examination and thereby respondent may kindly be directed to conduct Phase-II Examination separately qua to the/for the petitioner for the post of Junior Assistant (Post No.8). c. Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court considers just, fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the Petitioner; and, d. Costs of this writ petition may kindly be awarded in the favour of humble Petitioner." Prayer clause in SBCWP No.8438/2014: (i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby declare illegal to the action of the non-petitioners by which only the candidates who have secured 40% marks in each paper have been declared successful and consequently set aside the condition. (ii) By further writ order or direction the petitioner who have secured more than 40% marks in phase-I in aggregate may kindly be held eligibile for appearing in the examination Phase-II and further process and they may be held entitled for appointment. (iii) Issue any other writ order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (iv) Cost of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioner."
(3.) The skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy are that the petitioners in response to an advertisement issued by the Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "RIICO", for short), submitted their applications for consideration of their candidatures for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant. It is pleaded case of the petitioners that they successfully participated in the Phase-I of the examination held on 3rd May, 2014, for the post of Junior Assistant (Post No.8) in the advertisement. The exmaination which consisted of two papers i.e. (i) General Knowledge, Everyday Science and Mathematics and (ii) General Hindi and English. Result of the examination was declared on 10th June, 2014. Petitioner-Shakti Dan Charan secured 57.14% in Section A, 45.71% in Section B and 35% in Section D, and thus, the total percentage was 46.5%. In the second part, he secured 74% in Section A and in Section B 42%, and thus, the total percentage was 58%. The petitioner-Suman Lata Dhakar secured 50% in Section A, 54.29% in Section B and 38.33% in Section D, and thus, the total percentage was 48%. In the second part, she secured 79% in Section A and 34% in Section B, and thus, the total percentage was 56.5%. However, the petitioners were precluded from participation in the second phase for the reason that they could not qualify the Phase-I by securing minimum 40% in each Section, as contemplated under Clause 3 of the Advertisement.;