'-» "^T'gft, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARHl W^P.NO.^ OF 2005 PETmONERS ^ <\ o ^..<i^ ^^^- ^i. Alok Sharma, S/o Shri S. N. Sharma, aged about 41 years, Occupation- Service, presentty Working as Lecturer, Govt. of College Cff Education,Shankar Nagar, Raipur [Chhattisgarh] ^s^ ^•' Sanjay Guhey, S/o Late R. S. Guhey, aged about 41 years, Occupation- Service, presently Working as Lecturer, Govt. of College of Education, Shankar Nagar, Raipur {Chhattisgarhj VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^.'^a^ :^J ^^4>'v 'y' / '^ ]f \ '" / f- 'l '.,^ ^f/ *K ^,^< ^^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur [Chhattisgarh] /1. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Raipur through Its Chairman, Raipur [Chhattisgarh]. 3. Sadhana Agrawal, In-charge Prindpal, Government Higher Secondary School, Gandai Rajnandgaon [Chhattisgarh] 4. Hemant Upadhyaya, Prindpal Government Higher Secondary School, NTPC-Korba, presently Officiating District Education Officer, Korba [Chhattisgarh] 5. Prabodh Adhikari, Lecturer Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa [Chhattisgarh] lill -;ir--;!:a:iiiiEfc.- WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI. MANDAMUS PROHIBITION AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS. DIRECTTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR ORDERS: ^^^s??^^^%i^?I^^%:^^'Tfs';^'a:?^E^S^ ^^s;^;^s??a(%%?^^^^^^^?^ HIGH COURT OP CHHATnSQARH. BILASPUR JUDOBMBMT (Common Judpnent ca—edta W.P«.Ito.599/200S. 433/2005. 898/2005. 524/200S.312/2008. 887/200S. 21/2008. 4192/MOS and 718/2008.1 (The orig^aal Jitdgnent wl^ be kept la W.P. Mo. S99/200S aad a photocopy ofthe saiae shall be placed ia ottier cases.) JUDQMBNT Postfor ^-11-2008 Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge %'%,/ ^ c%^ ^^ ^>^ ^^' w^ lw^" .^^ 'm^£" ^y-^ ^y^ c^<^^ ^. .<•• ^y 'i/ii. mOH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH. BILASPUR W.P.MO.S99/200S Mohanlal Jaiswal and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh an<t others W.P.No.433/2(X)S Deepak Dubey ^ Vs. State of Chliatdsgarh & others W.P.N0.598/200S Alok Sharma and aaofhcr Vs. State ofCUiattisgarh and ofhers W.P.no.524/200S Rain Niwas Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others W.P.No.312/2005 Naad Kishore Dwivedi & othcrs Vs. State of CUhattisgarh & othcrs W.P.WOA87/200S Nawin Kishore Pradhan Vs. C.G. Public Sendce Comxnission & othcrs W.P.B0.21/200S Smt. CUhayaTiwari Vs. C.G. PubUc Sem.cc Conmussioa & othcra W.P.No.419a/a005 Nennal KTuaar Agrawal Vs. State of Chliattisgarh and others W.P.Mo.718/2005 Sm.t. Siinita Sao Vs. C.G. PubUc Service Conainission & ofhers Appearance for the petitloaera: Shri P.K.C. Tiwari, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Avinash Kumar Mishra, Shri Shasbl Bhushan, Shri Shushaat Tiwaiy, PrashantTiwari, Advocates in W.P.No.21/2005. Shri Manindra Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate with Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Shri Aflx>z Khan, Sint. Smita Ghai, Shri Amit Verma, Advocates in W.P.No.599 / 2005, W.P.No.433/2005 and W.P.No.598/05. Shri PritixLkar Diwakar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Veerendra Sharma, Bharat Rajput, Anoop Majumdar, Kunal Das, Advocates ia W.P.No.312/2005 Sbri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate aad Shri V.C. Ottalwar Advocate in W.P.No.524/2005. ShriVishnu Koshta, Advocate in W.P.No.4192/2005. Sint. Fouzia Mirza aad Siat. Reema Dubey, Advocates in W.P.No.718/2005. Shri Raghavendra Pradhan aad Shri Saajay Agrawal, Advocates in W.P.No.287/2005. Appearance tor the Btate/Chhattiaearli PubUc Service Commisstoa and Private Resoondeats: Shri Pramod Kumar Verma, Additional Advocate General. Shri Ptashant Mishra, Sr. Advocate with Shri B.D.Guru and Sbri Y.C. Sharma, Advocates for the Chhattisgarh Public Serwice Conuaission. Shri Rajeudra Tiwari, Sr. Advocate and Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Shri Prateek Shartna, Shri N.K. Vyas, Shri R. K. Kesarwaiu for fhe private respondents. h ^l fftj JUDGBtBNT (fC. 11.2005) Snn«ICnmar filnha, .1, 1. By way of these writ pctitions filed undcr Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are either unsucccssfal caadidates or have not been called in interview arranged for selection to fhe posts of Deputy Director, School Education; Principal (DIET^ and Professor (Shiksha Maha Vidyalay Sainvai^ have chaUengcd fhe legality and vaUdily of selectipn of successful candidates to the said posts. 2. The brief facts are that the ChItattisgaA PubUc Service Coininission issucd au advertiseiaent No.05/2003/ Chayan/ dated 04.7.2003 published in Euiployment News 'Rojgar Niyojana' dated 09.7.2003 iawiting appUcattons for direct recruitmcnt to the aforesaid 3 categories of posts. There were six posts advertfsed for Depuly Director, two posts for Principal (DIET) and two posts for Professor (Shiksha Mahavidyalaya Samvar^. Out of sfac posts of Deputy Director, 3 posts were shown to be in general categoiy aad one post was reserved for schcduled caste, one for scheduled tnbe aud one was reserved for OBC categoiy. Ainoi^ the 3 posts of general categoiy, oae post was shown to bc reservcd for wom.cn category. In Principal (DIET), one postwas kept ia general categoiy aad one was kept in schfidiLled tribe category. Likc wisc in Professor (SMksha Mahavidyalaya Sanavarg) one post was kcpt m gencral categoiy and one was kept rescrved ia scbeduled tribe categoiy. For eUgibiUty, taaay other condttions pertaming to fhe educational quaUfications and experience wcre also published alongwifh the criteria of age Umlts etc. Apart fix>m fhe abovc, fhe Commission also pubUshed auefhod of selection/recnutiaent vidc Column 11 of fhc aforesaid advertisement and it was tnentionied (hierem fhat if the nuniber of appBcation forms reccived by fhc Commissfa>n would be relativety tess and ia fhe opmipn of ttic CoBnxnission a written cxainination would not be necessary, fhai thc posts may be fiUed in oafy on the basis of iaterview coiiducted by thc Comxnission. However, if fhc ntuubcr of appllcatinn fonas woirid be more fhaa fhe ratfo of fhe posts advertiscd and it wOuM not be practicable for the Commission to interview each of fhe candklates then fhe Cominission vaay saxsaafe Sca fhe written cxamination to reduce fhe auniber of candidates to be caBed for intemcw m the ratio of 1:3. 3. Thcreafter, a Cortigcndtun/Addendiun dated 17.5.2004 was published ia "Rojgar Nyojan" dated 19.5.2004 indicatmg that oa the basis of Mcmo No.F-1-204/2003/20, dated 27.4.2004 of fhe concemcd department one unrescrved post of Depuly Director, was wtfhdrawa/reduced aiid it was pubUshed fhat now fhe selection wouM taken place for 5 posts of Depuly Directors aaaking particular statement that two posts shall be reservcd for gaaeral category, one for S.C., onc for S.T., and <nie for O.B.Ci. 4. After recdving fhe application fonns, Qie Publie Semcc Comnussion vide its mcetixig dated 08.10.2004 decided to hoU fhe iatemews oaty to setect fhe candMates for recomiBcndatfon. According to fhe retura of fhe PubMc Servicc Commission, the decision to hold intca-view oiity, was taken after finding fhat number of appUcatfons are less fhan 500. AU the eMgible candidates were sent iatervicw cards and fhe iaterviews were held bv fhe Commissioa fi»m 03.01,2005 to 68.01.2005. After /^jft ^v.' coinplctton ofthe proccss ofiaterview, the rcsults were declared on 17.1.2005 and the recomiaeadations according to the said results were scnt to fhe State Govemment It is at this stage, the iinsuccessful candidates, who oflfered for the various posts, have chaUea^d fh.e result aad setection of the PubUc Seryice Cominission dated 17.1.2005 io. various writ petitions. 5. The petitioner of W.P.No.433/2005 namety Deepak Dubcy was a candidate for fhe post of Deputy Director as weU as Principal (DIET). One post of Dcputy Dtrector in fhe general category, which was wifhdrawii, was fiUed up by fhe Qovemm.cnt wifhout taMag recourse of fhe PubUc Service Commission and one Dr. Hare Ram Shanna (respondeut no.3 ia this petition), who was working on fhe post of Distdct Educatmn OfBcer, was appointed to fhc Post The petitioner chaUertges hls appoiatinent on fhe ground that his ducct recruitment to fhe post of Deputy Director after withdrawing one post durii^ the process of selection is unfair and is furthcr agamst the provisions of Rule 6 of the ISJP^C.O) Bductttlon Seroiee (School BraneSi) RecruStment & PronwVton itutes 1982 (hcremafter referrcd to as "the Rules 198:y}. His contentmn is that fhe process adopted ia case ofrespoadent no.3 is unknown to law, bypassiag the provistons ofRulc 6. The othcr ground taken in fhis writ petition is about sclection of respondent no.4 (SxatR. Bhamra) who has also bcca sekcted to fhe post of Deputy Ducctor. It fa contended fhat she has been shown to be selected s^ainst fhe reservcd categoiy of women in fhe categoiy of gencral candidates. It is furfher contended fhat after withdrawal of one post by fhe Govenunent out of 3 general categoiy posts of Dcputy Director, only two posts of Deputy Director were left wifh the Publlc Semce ^' Commission aad if fhc Comnussion has appoiated a lady agamst fhe rescrved post fhen fhe reservatton for the ladies esccccds the petcestayc of 30% as has beea prescribed under thc JKP. /C.C^ Ct»Ufitewa (BSithUoon K Hetu Vtsheah Gl*€Uid^W^cim, 1997 (heTeinafter referred to as fhe Rnles 1997). Tbe subBBmsion fe fhat if onc post is reaeryed for fhe wonaen in geneial category out of avaDable two posts, the resavation gocs upto 50% whteh te bey<md thc pennissiblc licalt of 30% and the samc vtolates fhe rulcs. He also submits that respondcnt ao.4 does not fulfin fhe expeticD.ee cntcria, , as she was worku^ as fhe Vlce Principal which is not an adaunistrative post and on fhis ground also hcr sclection te bad in law. The petitfoner has ateo chaltenged fhc setectfon of Hcmaat U-padhyay (respoiadent no.5) on fhe ground fhat he was aot at aB eligibte for consideratton ia. terms of rute 8 of Rutes 1982 in as much as on 01.01.2004, his ay cxceeded fhe upper age limit of38 years prescribed under the Rules. Tfais petitioner 1s atso aygneved as his eaadidature for fhe post of Pimcipal (DIET) was not accepted. In fhis regaid, fhe submission is fhat he fuUBs fhe entire qualification, fhexefore, he was iDegaBy deaued consideration for the post ofPtmcspal (DIET1. 6. Thje petidoners in W.P.No^l2/2005 axe fhc 7 unsuccessful candidates who had appcared in fhe mtemew for respective posts. They are mainty chaUengtng fhe mefhod of sclecticni adopted by the PubUc Scmce Coinmission by taking iaterview onty. Thcir contention is that as per Column No.ll of the AdverUsemeat, in the facts and citcumstaaces of fhis case, fhe PubUc Servicc Coinmission was undcr obUgation to conduct a written test and fhereafter an mtcrview asd fhea to count fhe marks obtemed by a ^._. -.—..—•—•-—— o candidate in bofh. They also contam that thc less meritorious candidates have bcen selected. They have cbaBeagcd fhe sclection of Sint-R.Bambra (icspondent no.3 hereit^ on the grouiid that she was not having reqiusite adnuiustratwe experience. They have atoo chaBcnged the sclection of Sadhana Agrawal (respondcat no.4) showii^ that she was also not having Tequisite experience and hawe also chaUeaged fhe Selcction of Hemant Upadhyaya (respondent no.5 herein) aUeging fhat he too was lagging in qualificatton of expericncc. Selcction of Gand Rana Chandrakar (respondent No.6) has been chaBcr^ed on fhe ground that his caste certisBcate of fhe State of Chhattisgarh was not produced. The selection of respondeat ao.7 Ghanshyaia Netani has been clialleaiged aBeging that he does not possess the basic experience as xcquired. 7. W.P.No.599/2005 has been fited by 4 unsucccssful caadidates who had also pardcipated in the intenriew. Thjey have also chaBenged fhe sdectioa of Dr. Hareram Sharma (respoiident no.3 hercia) on accountofviolation ofRute 6 offhe aforesaid Rutes of 1982. They have furfher chaBenged the selection of Sm.t R.Bambra (respondent ao.4) on (he same grounds as have been taken in W.P.No.433/2005. Apart fiom fhis, fhcy have ateo chaUenged the setectton ofShri G.R. Chandxakar (respoiident no.5) who has been setected in O.'B.C. eategoiy for fhe post <rf fhe Dcpuly Director aUeguig it to be conteary to fhe Rutes sta accMding to the petittonera, the respoiident no.5 does not fulfiU fhe el^Sbility criteria of admuustrative e3q)ericace as required under the rutes aud the advertisetaenfc •^ '. \ •'» . \i 8. W.P.No.524/2005 has bccn ffled by onc Shn Ram Niwas Singh who was a candidate for fhe post of Dcputy Director, in gpneral categoiy. Hc appeared in the intemew and ultiinately, when the results were dcclared, his naine was shown to be at second position in the general list, but hc was to be in supplemcntary Ust at scrial no.l for fhe reason that out of six posts adverttsed, his selection was inadc onty against five posts as onc post was wrongty withdranvn by fhe Govenuncnt aad was fiUed in by direcffy absorbiag Dr. Hareram. Sharma. The contentk>n of ffae petltioner is that if three posts would have bcen fhere iu fhe gencral categoty thcn even after leaviug one post for women reservation, two posts wouM have been fherc for the male general candidates and fhe petitioner being at Serial No.2 in the inerit Vst would have been sclccted. In fact, selection ofrespondent no.5 has been chaUe^ed beit^ violativc of rute 6 of the aforesaid Rules of 1982 and it te. contended that if the selection of respondcnt no.5 is set aside, fhe petitioner wiU autoinaticaBy stand sekcted being at serial ao.2 in. the select list of gcneral male categoiy. This petitfoner has not chaUenged fhe process of selection etc. 9. W.P.No.718/2005 has been filed by one Smt Sumta Sao, who was a woman candidate for the post of Depuly Director and has appeared ia fhe iaterview. Whilc chaBengu^ fhe selection of SinfcR. Bambra (respondent no.2 herem) on ground of lack of administeatwc experience, this petitioner has also taken an additional grouxid that she being more quaUfled thau Smt R. Bstsdbrst, was not selected by the PubUc Service Commission and her name finds place at Serial No.l in thc wait Mst ia gencral woinen categoiy. She prays for quashing ofthe entire selection. -=^-^'. 10. W.P.No.598/20(B and W.P.No.287/2005 have been fited by fhe pctittoners who had partkapated in ibe mtervicw for the selection. to thc post of frincipal (DIET). They Iiave cbaBcnged fhe sekction of Sadhaaa Agrawal who has been dcclared sclected and Iiave also chaUen^jed the sdection of Heinant Upadhyaya and F'rabodh Adlukari whose names havc been placed at Serial No. 1 and 2 in the suppteinentaiy list (wait Ust) prepared jfor fhe post of Priucipal (DIET) in gencral category. Thcy have taken the ground fhat these persons do not fiilfiU the requisite quaUficatfon of cxpencnce reqiiired for tliis posfc 11. W.P.No.4192/2005 has been fited by one Nirmal Kumar Agrawal who appcared in uiterview for fhe post of the Deputy Director. Hc has chaUenged fhe setectfaui of Smt. R. Bambra aad Hemaat Upadhyaya (respoiidents no.4 aad 5 herein) on the ground that fhe sclecticm had to take place aceonling to fhc Act No.5 of 1984 namcly The Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva Ayog (Prakrtya Ka Vinyaman) Adlumyam 1984. Thc snbmission is that the pnwisions of thc aforesaid Act have not been complied and correct pincedurc for aBocation of marks were not adopted and if the conect pxocedTue woidd have bccn adopted, the petitioncr would have beca setected insteal ofrespondcnts no.4 & S. 12. W.P.No.21/2005 has been fited by, oiie Smt Ohhaya Tnvari who has challenged fhe validily of comTniinkatfon dated 07.12.2004 mfonning her fhat her appUcation fbr fhe post of Deputy Director, Education, has been rejected on ftic ground ttiat shc does not fulfill fhe criteria of experieace pubBshcd in fhe adverdscment uader the Ruka. In fact, ahe has ehaltenged the rqectioa ofher appUcatkai finin on various grounds. &| i 10 13. The PubUc Service Coaunission has filed its rctum in W.P. No.433 of 2005 and has denied fhe conteations raised by the petitioner and this vciy retum has been requested to be considered as fhe retum in att fhe cases. The State Govemnieat has also filed its retura in W.P.No.599/2005 and has alinost supported the contentions of the PubKc Scrvice Comnussion. Tfae private respondents filed their repfy in some of fheir rcspective cases, but fhe staad taken by thein justifying thcir selection, is oae and the saine ia all thc raatters. 14. I have heard leacned counsel for the respcctivc parties at length aad have also perused the records ofaUthe writ petitions. 15. Firstty, I am taking up W.P.No.4192/2003 for consideratioii. As stated abovc, fhe petitioner ia ttus writ petition challengiag fbe sekction, was a candidate for the post of Depuly Director. He has chaBenged fhe selection of Hemant Upadhyaya aad Sm.t, R. Bambra (respondents No.4 SB 5 hereia) on the grouiid that the PubMc Scrvice Comnussion has not foUowcd fbe piovisions of The Mndhga Prddcsh Z^»fc Ste»a Agag (Prfikrlya. Ka VtnlyanwH) Adhta^am 1984 (Act No.S of 1984). Referrmg to clause (vi) of sub-section (1) ofScction 4 ofthe Act leamed counsel subinits that section 4 prescribes for pnx»ditrein thc inatter ofrecrultment to a service or post by sclection. He further subinits that the aforesaid sub-clause postulates that iffhe selection is by iatemew only, due credit for the past academic career of a Gaadidate shflU be given. Leanaed counsel submits that if fhe marks woiild have been aUocated m fhe maaner indrcated in the Act, 1984, certamly the petitioner would have bccn sekcted ia place ofrespondents no.4 & 5, because the petitioner retains a better educatioiial qualification 11 f;f for Which he would have bcen aBocated better maxks than fhe private respondents. On fhe cao.tsxay, teamed counsel for fhc State as weU as Public Scrvice Comnussicm n&r to fhe proivlsions of M.PfC.G) Xiofc Swou Ayog (Prakrlya Kii Vtoliiuiytu^ JUrsan AdhtoSyam. 1986 (Aet t.l9 of 198^ (availabte at M.P.LBWS Manual, Second Editton, Vohuue No.8, Pg.722) and submit that on the commencement of fhls Act No.19 of 1986 aa 26th ofMay 1986 and by wntuc of section 2 of the said Act, the entire Act No.5 of 1984 meaaely the TVie SLP (C.O) Lok 3e»a^yog (Prakrlya JKa, ViHiyeaium) AiMtiMlyam. 1984 has bcen repealed. Thc submission is that the petittoncr cannot take the ground for allocation ofmarks on ttie basis ofthe provisions ofa rcpcated Act, fhercfore, the petitton has no iiicrit and tfae same shoirid be dismissed. I have carefulty gone thiough fhe provisions af the oM. Act No.5 of 1984 and thc new Act No. 19 of 1986. Indeed fhe new Act which has recdved fhe asscnt offhe Govemor on 16th ofMsy 1986 and fhe assent first published in M.P.(C.G) Qazette (&ctFaordinfliy) dated 26th of Msy 1986, has aepealed fhe entire provisions of the Act No.5 of 1984. It is a setfted princqile that esecept as td transactk>ns passed and ctoscd, a statute afiter ite repeal is as coiapletety obliterated as if it had iicver been eaacted. (Pteasc see fhe Principtes ofStatutoiy Interpretations by Justice Q.P. Smgh 6th Editton page 411) Therefore, the question ofconsideriB^ the (sase ofthe petitioner fbr non aUocation ofpioper marto accordmg to fhe provisicms of the repealed Act, whjch in faet has becn repealed in fhe year 1986 itseU, does iiot arise. There is 110 ancrit to. this 12 petition. Hence, W.P.No.4192/2005 is disxussed on thfa count atone. 16. In W.P.No.21/2005, the subnussKHi rf teamed counsel fi>r the pctitioner is that the petitioaer was fulty cligible &r caUing in intemew to fhc post of Etepuly Dircctor. He submlts that the public scmce coanmission committed an errw by tejecdag fhe applicatfon fona of thc petitioner on fhe ground of not havit^ requisite expcrience. On the other liand teamed couusel for fhe PubUc Service CoxnmlssiDn rebuts aad submits fhat the rcjection ofthe appUcatioa form was proper. He ai^ues that the form of the petitioiier was rejected on fhc ground that she had not funushed requisite certificates of experience as was required by the coiunussioa. He refere to fhe experinice clausc of the advertiseiuent wde Coliuun No.2 (Annexure P-2) and further refers to coliunn No.9 and subaiits that since the petittoner had not annexed the eertificates pertaming to her experiiraicc whieh was one of fhe essential conditfons for eligibility and appointment, lier appUcation form was rightly rejected by fhe Conmrisaoii. I bawe consideied -Qie arguments advanced by both the counsels. There is an cssential requirciaent as per fhc advertiseni'ent (Annexure P- 2) that the persons apptying for fhe post of Dcputy Diiector must have aa experience of 10 ycars in teachmg Higher Secondaiy Classes and he/she niust also have 3 years adnuaistrative expcrience. Column No.9 postulates that tlie application ferm. must be accoapanied wifh fhe ccrtificates and if the certificates so directed wiU not be annexcd, the AppUcatmn Form shaffl bc treated as nicoaiplete and the same shaU be rejected and no further correspondcnce therefor shall be cntertauied by the comnusaiOn. 13 The submission of leamed couasel for fhc petitioner is that (he detaBs of ccrtificates to be attached have been nientioned in various sub-coluams of column No.9, but in fhls cohunn there is no mention of aay experience certificate, fherefore, if fhe expericnce certificate was not aniKxed wifh the appUcation form (Aniiexure R-3), the appUcatton form wouM not have been tr^ted as incoinplete and the saiae would not have been rejected on fhis groiuid. I have carefulty perused fhe provisious of this coliiaui and have also perused the appUcatmn form of the petitioner which has been filed as Annexure R-3 by the Conuuission. Adnuttedly, the application form is a prcscribed fonu which taas maay cohmuis. Cohunn no.IO dcals with the educational qualifi.cations and column no.ll deals with the details of the previous semccs rendered by a candidate. In case fhe appUcation form is fiBed in by a person eniployed or worked ia any iastitutk»n hc/she has to fumish dctails in thc prescribed tabiilar fonn ia tttis colutnn, Thcrc are verdcal sub-cohunns in the tebiilar form for inentioning fhe certificate number aud there are ateo speci&c iastructions (hat for supporting fhe educational qualificatton and the semce experience, a candidate shatl have to annex fhe certificates acconlingly. Therefore, after a conjoint readiBtg of fhe advertiseiaents as weB as the application form, it would appear that ftu-nishiiig of dctails and ccrtificates ia support of edTicational qualificatfons and also in support of fhe eiqiericnce, in case of previousty emptoyed persons,was a inust aad if aay application form te not supported by fhese necessary docuaients, fhey were liabte to be rejccted. I am takmg fhis view becausc the vciy 14 <<^' ^> purpose for askmg thcsc details iacluding the scrvice detafls is to ascertain about thc suitabUity of a caadidate to be catled for examination aud to scc that no person with less qualification or who is inel^ible for fhese posts, on ftie basis of paescribcd rules, aiay appear in the examination to create further coinpUcatfons. The scrutiny of the application form is a work of responsibility because the sanie gives fhe first impUed graat to a candidate showiag hls/hcr eUgibilily for appearance in the examination. In fhc present case, a perusal ofthe appUcadoa form ofthe petitioner (Annexure R-3) would show fhat atl Ifae columns regardlag production of requisite certificates about fhe edu<»tional quaUfications as weU as experience have becn lcft blank and have not been fiBed in by fhe pctitioner. In fact, fhe appUcation fonn of the petitioner was dispatched incontplete without fiinushing requisite cerdficates ia this regard aud whcn such a form, after scrutiny, has been rejected by fhe Cominission, in the opinion of this Court, the Commission has not commltted any mistake and the rejection of fhe appUcation form and comiaunlcatiDn of the same vide Aiinexure P-1 is reasonabfc aud prqper. I do not find any merit in fhis writ petition. The same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 17. In other writ petitions bearing No.599/2005, 433/2005, 598/2005, 524/2005, 312/2005, 287/2005 and 718/2005, the grounds takcn are inore or tess siarilar ia nature and at thc ar^unients learaed counsel for fhc respective petitioners pressed and raised fhe foBowuig comiaon points oaly ; (1) Whefhcr the Govemment was competent to wifhdraw one postafter advertiscment and the appoiatment of 15 'i/T' Dr. Hare Ram Sharma agalast such post was proper and in accordaace with law and ia case his appoiatmcnt is set aside, Shri Rain Niwas Singh (petitioner in W.P.No.524/2005) wiB get advant^e and will be treated as selected ? (2) Whether ffae selection of Snit. R. Bambra ^aiast the reserved woinan post in gencral categoiy goes against fhe women reservation rulcs of fhe Govemiaeat and the satne was uajustified ? (3) Whethcr the post ofVice Prfncipal is aa administeative post and the experience fhereof can be treated as fhe admuustrative expericncc sis per the cnteria of the advertiscinent ? (4) Whether the selection of Heiuaut Upadhyaya was against the rules as it violates the provisions of fhc ays prescribed undcr fhe rules ? (5) Whefher the inethod of selection adopted by fhc PubUc Service Commission was improper and fflegal aad thc tess ineritorious candidates have been