CW 5318/09 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** 1-Civil Writ Petition No.5318/2009 Dr. Anil Tripathi Versus State & Ors. 2-Civil Writ Petition No.5352/2009 Dr. Sohan Solanki & (12) Ors Versus RPSC & Anr. 3-Civil Writ Petition No.5656/2009 Dr. Nitesh Kumar Goyal Versus RPSC & Anr. 4-Civil Writ Petition No.5747/2009 Dr. Manoj Kr. Yadav Versus RPSC & Anr. Date of Order ::: 21/08/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Sanjeev Pra. Sharma, for petitioner Mr. SN Kumawat, for respondents Since these petitions involve common issue, at joint request, are being disposed of vide this order. All the four writ petitions were filed by petitioners with the grievance that in pursuance of advertisement issued by Rajasthan Public Service Commission applications were invited for the post of Lecturers in various discipline; and those appearing in Post graduate examinations were permitted to participate in process of selection and accordingly all the petitioners appeared in written screening test and qualified the same but there was requirement that on the date of interview they have to submit their mark sheet of post-graduate examination - in absence whereof, they were not considered to be CW 5318/09 //2// eligible to appear in the interview pursuant to advertisement in question. Since post graduate examination in cases of present petitioners could not have been held due to declaration of parliamentary elections being not under their control, their grievance is that the PSC has also not taken care of the exigency which arose so that persons like petitioners may not be deprived of their right of fair consideration and that was the only cause raised herein. This Court immediately took note of the grievance and permitted the petitioners to appear in the interview while passing interim orders. Except petitioner-6 & 11-CWP-5352/09, all have appeared in the interview and on a perusal of their result, none of the petitioners have qualified or were declared successful. Counsel for petitioners submits that since they were not considered by PSC to be eligible, and appeared under interim orders of this Court, there was unfair treatment given to them and that was the only cause that none of them could have qualified in the interview. Counsel further submits that the PSC atleast may be directed that while holding Schedule CW 5318/09 //3// for interview, it has to be kept in mind that those aspirants are permitted to participate in process of selection initiated, so as to get opportunity of fair consideration therein and such hurdles may not occur resulting into depriving applicants as happened in case of present petitioners. Counsel for respondents-PSC on the other hand submits that schedule of holding written examination followed with interviews is being fixed immediately after issuance of advertisement and applications were invited from holder of post graduate/other examination making the applicants eligible, are not under their control and the PSC normally takes note of all the exigencies but it is not always possible to take care of such situation. It is true that the petitioners did not qualify minimum marks in interview so as find their names in merit list. However, this Court finds substance in the submissions made by Counsel for petitioners that those having once permitted to appear in competitive examination pursuant to advertisement, it has always to be kept in mind that their right of fair consideration should not in any manner be jeopardized; and while fixing Schedule of CW 5318/09 //4// either holding written examination or the interviews, as the case may be, eligibility of such candidates having once appeared should always be kept in mind as far as possible, that is the only way by which they can be provided with right of fair consideration, and which must be the approach expected from RPSC to follow as and when interviews are scheduled. However, since petitioners have failed to succeed in process of selection, no relief in the facts of instant cases can be granted to them. With the observations, ibid, writ petitions stand disposed of. No costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.4/ 5318CW09Aug21(4)Ds.doc