Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) SINCE in both the matters controversy involved are similar, therefore, both the writ petitions are decided by this common judgment. Both the petitioners submitted that they possess the requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Constable in RAC/Police and in response to the advertisement issued by the respondent No. 2 for appointment on the post of Constable in Rajasthan Police/RAC, the petitioners applied. The petitioners were successful in written test and, thereafter, they were called for physical test, wherein also, the petitioners were found physically able for appointment to the post concerned. However, the petitioner Shyam Lal was given only 3 marks in interview inspite of the fact that he secured 43.125 marks in the written test out of 50 marks and 20 marks out of 20 marks in physical fitness test. The another petitioner Madan Gopal secured 40 marks in the written test out of 50 marks and 20 marks out of 20 marks in physical fitness test. He also was awarded 3 marks in the interview. Because of this less marking in the interview, their candidature was rejected. It will be worthwhile to mention here that in the select list against both the persons' names there is a remark that they are selected. However, that remark was factually wrong as they have been denied appointment on the basis of total marks after adding the marks of the interview.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submitted that it was total unfair on the part of the respondents in awarding such a low marks in the interview to the petitioners when they secured very good marks in the written test as well as in the physical fitness test. It is also submitted that the post in question is the post of Constable and looking to the post, the petitioners' candidature could not have been rejected merely because of the low marking in the interview.;