SBCWP No.1757/2009- Smt. Yashbala Rathore Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. alongwith other similar matters of ANM 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICAGTURE FOR RAJATHAN AT JODHPUR ::: JUDGMENT S.N. Case No. Particulars 1 CW 1757/2009 SMT. YASHBALA RATHORE Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 2 CW 1455/2009 SANGEETA BISHNOI & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ANR. 3 CW 1487/2009 SMT. SONIA YADAV & ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ANR. 4 CW 1520/2009 SMT. KAUSHALYA PATIDAR Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 5 cw 1535/2009 PUSHPA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ANR. 6 cw 1536/2009 JAYA HADAT Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ANR. 7 CW 1537/2009 SARIKA KATARA Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ANR. 8 cw 1539/2009 REKHA ROAT Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ANR. 9 cw 1540/2009 RADHA KOTED Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ANR. 10 CW 1646/2009 SMT. SHANTI CHARPOTA Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 11 CW 1758/2009 SMT. SANGEETA Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 12 CW 1759/2009 MS. SAROJ KUMARI Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 13 CW 1760/2009 SMT. PUSHPA KULHARI Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 14 CW 1761/2009 SMT. VIMALA VYAS Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 15 CW 1762/2009 SMT. PEP KUNWAR Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 16 CW 1763/2009 SMT. BEENA VAJPAI Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 17 CW 1764/2009 SMT. SUSHAMA RANI YADAV Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 18 CW 1765/2009 MS. SUBHITA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 19 CW 1766/2009 SMT. PAVITRA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 20 CW 1767/2009 SMT. SUNITA VAISHNAV Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 21 CW 1768/2009 MS. DROUPADI RAIGAR Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 22 CW 1769/2009 SMT. MEERA MOLAT Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 23 CW 1770/2009 SMT. VEENA JOSHI Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. SBCWP No.1757/2009- Smt. Yashbala Rathore Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. alongwith other similar matters of ANM 2 24 CW 1771/2009 SMT. SEEMA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 25 CW 1772/2009 SMT. SUSHMA PUROHIT Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 26 CW 1794/2009 SMT. RAJESHWARI DEVADA Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 27 CW 1795/2009 SMT. GAYATRI DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 28 CW 1796/2009 SMT. BARAJI Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 29 CW 1797/2009 SMT. MANJU CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 30 CW 1798/2009 SMT. MUKESH MEHRA Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 31 CW 1799/2009 SMT. KAMALA KATARA Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 32 CW 1800/2009 SMT. ARCHNA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 33 CW 1801/2009 SMT. MANJULA PARGI Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 34 CW 1802/2009 SMT. ASHA SAD Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 35 CW 1803/2009 SMT. INDIRA PATEL Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 36 CW 1804/2009 SMT. MANJU DAMORE Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 37 CW 1820/2009 SMT. NIRMALA Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 38 CW 1821/2009 KRISHNA KUMARI YADAV Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 39 CW 1822/2009 SMT. INDRA KALAL Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 40 CW 1823/2009 SMT. YASHODA Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 41 CW 1824/2009 SMT. YASHODA DAMOR Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 42 CW 1825/2009 SMT. SUMAN KUMARI YADAV Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 43 CW 1826/2009 SMT. MUNNA KUNWAR Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 44 CW 1827/2009 SMT. VANDNA RATHORE Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 45 CW 1828/2009 SMT. SANJANA GAUSAWMI Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 46 CW 1847/2009 SMT. ANITA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 47 CW 1853/2009 SMT. SAVITA YADAV Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 48 CW 1854/2009 SMT. SHANTA CHAMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 49 CW 1871/2009 SMT. USHA KATARA Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 50 CW 1872/2009 MS. SITA KUMARI AHARI Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS SBCWP No.1757/2009- Smt. Yashbala Rathore Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. alongwith other similar matters of ANM 3 51 CW 1873/2009 SMT. SANTOSH KAROT Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 52 CW 1874/2009 SMT. MANJULA PATIDAR Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 53 CW 1875/2009 SMT. KALA PATIDAR Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 54 CW 1876/2009 MS. HEENA JOSHI Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 55 CW 1877/2009 SMT. PREMLATA JALTHANIA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 56 CW 1878/2009 SMT. DEVSANA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 57 CW 1879/2009 SMT. RAMILA BAMANIYA Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 58 CW 1880/2009 MS. SARITA DINDOR Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 59 CW 1881/2009 SMT. KALPANA PATIDAR Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 60 CW 1884/2009 SMT. SHANTA AHARI Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 61 CW 1885/2009 SMT. SUNITA BEN Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 62 CW 1886/2009 SMT. NAGMA ANJUM Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 63 CW 1888/2009 SMT. HARMONI Vs. STATE OF RAJ, & ORS 64 CW 1889/2009 SMT. BHURI YADAV Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 65 CW 1893/2009 SMT. GEETA RAJORIA Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 66 CW 1894/2009 SMT. PRITAM KANWAR CHOUHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 67 CW 1895/2009 MS. ANUJ PARGI Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 68 CW 1897/2009 SMT. LEENA BHAWSAR Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 69 CW 1898/2009 SMT. NIRMALA DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 70 CW 1899/2009 SMT. KALPANA TRIVEDI Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 71 CW 1900/2009 SMT. PINKY CHOUHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 72 CW 1901/2009 SMT. MOHINI TAK Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 73 CW 1902/2009 SMT. KANKU KHAT Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 74 CW 1907/2009 SMT. GAYATRI BHATT Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 75 CW 1908/2009 SMT. MUNNI DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 76 CW 1909/2009 SMT. MANJULATA Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 77 CW 1910/2009 SMT. LEELA KUMARI RATHORE Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS SBCWP No.1757/2009- Smt. Yashbala Rathore Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. alongwith other similar matters of ANM 4 78 CW 1911/2009 SMT. PRIYANKA VAISHNAV Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 79 CW 1912/2009 MS. PRAMILA Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 80 CW 1913/2009 SMT. KALAWATI PATIDAR Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 81 CW 1914/2009 MS. DHULI BUNKAR Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 82 CW 2110/2009 SMT. SUMAN YADAV Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 83 CW 2145/2009 SMT. SUNITA BHATI Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 84 CW 2146/2009 SMT. PAPPU DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 85 CW 2148/2009 SMT. USHA DAGAR Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 86 CW 2297/2009 SMT. SHANTI CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 87 CW 2417/2009 SMT. PRAVEENA VAISHNAV Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 88 CW 2418/2009 SMT. SHARDA DEVI DAMORE Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 89 CW 2419/2009 SMT. UMIYA PATEL Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 90 CW 2420/2009 SMT. NEETA MALI Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 91 CW 2455/2009 SMT. TARA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 92 CW 2456/2009 SMT. KAMALA DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 93 CW 2457/2009 SMT. SUNITA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 94 CW 2458/2009 SMT. SUMAN VERMA Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 95 CW 2459/2009 SMT. KAMALA TIWARI Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 96 CW 2460/2009 SMT. SUNILA CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 97 CW 2461/2009 SMT. KAMLA Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 98 CW 2470/2009 MRS. DEEPIKA GAMOT Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ANR 99 CW 2471/2009 MRS SITA KATARA Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ANR 100 CW 2472/2009 MS RADHA RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ANR 101 CW 2473/2009 SMT. SUNITA PRAJAPAT Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ANR 102 CW 2474/2009 VANDANA NAMDEO Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ANR 103 CW 2475/2009 PARWATI PARMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ANR 104 CW 2527/2009 VIMLESH KUMARI Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS SBCWP No.1757/2009- Smt. Yashbala Rathore Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. alongwith other similar matters of ANM 5 105 CW 2528/2009 BHAGWATI KHILERI Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 106 CW 2531/2009 SMT. KESAR PATEL Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ANR 107 CW 2532/2009 SMT. SUJATA AHARI Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ANR 108 CW 2533/2009 PUSHPA KANWAR DEORA Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ANR 109 CW 2534/2009 SUSHILA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 110 CW 2535/2009 INKA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 111 CW 2540/2009 RAMA RAO Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 112 CW 2541/2009 BASANTI KUMARI SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 113 CW 2651/2009 SMT. SANTOSHI CHOUDHARY & ORS Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 114 cw 2691/2009 SHAILJA Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 115 CW 2918/2009 SUMITRA Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 116 CW 2955/2009 SMT. SUNITA SOLANKI Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 117 CW 2956/2009 MISS. SHEELA Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 118 CW 3211/2009 SMT. SUSHILA DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 119 CW 3924/2009 MANJU DEVI & ORS Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 120 CW 4033/2009 SUMAN VISHNOI Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 121 CW 4138/2009 PUSHPLATA Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 122 CW 5310/2009 RADHA Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 123 CW 5676/2009 SMT. SANTOSH PUROHIT Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 124 CW 5677/2009 POONAM KUMARI Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 125 CW 5694/2009 RENU KUMARI Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 126 CW 5788/2009 SMT. SANTOSH KUMARI Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 127 CW 8283/2009 SMT. ASHA JOSHI & ORS Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS DATE OF ORDER : October 23rd,2009. SBCWP No.1757/2009- Smt. Yashbala Rathore Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. alongwith other similar matters of ANM 6 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. S/Sh. PR Mehta, Aruna Negi, RS Saluja, Narpat Singh, Vineet Jain, CS Chhangani, Harish Purohit, NS Rajpurohit, Deelip Kawadia, KR Choudhary, Rakesh Arora, Sunil Beniwal BK Vyas, DK Godara and Mrinmay Bhattnewara, for the petitioners. Mr. Anand Purohit with Mr. Praduman Singh, Addl. Advocate General for the respondent-State. S/Sh.RS Choudhary, Hemant Dutt, NR Choudhary, for the applicants-intervenors <><><> REPORTABLE BY THE COURT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. These all writ petitions are decided by this common judgment as the petitioners on various grounds have challenged the process of selection initiated by issuing notification dated 18.7.2008 for appointment on the post of Rural Health Worker (Female). All the petitioners applied for the said post and faced the interview, but failed to succeed. According to the petitioners they were appointed on sanctioned post of Addl. Female Health Worker on contract basis earlier and they are continuing in service of Addl. Female Health Worker in Rural areas without any break. The petitioners were initially paid fix pay of Rs.3,500/- per month, which was subsequently increased by the SBCWP No.1757/2009- Smt. Yashbala Rathore Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. alongwith other similar matters of ANM 7 respondents from time to time. The said appointments were given to the petitioners after inviting applications vide notification dated 2.4.2003, copy of which has been annexed and one of which is in the writ petition which is SBCWP No.1794/2009. According to the petitioners their appointments on the said post were permissible even under the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1965). However, there is no reference of Rules of 1965 in the advertisement Annex.1 dated 2.4.2003 and said notification only conveys that looking to the difficult geographical conditions and conditions of the Schedule Tribes, the Government of Rajasthan decided to appoint Addl. Female Health Worker on contract basis on fixed salary of Rs.3,500/- per month and the appointment under the said advertisement shall be for one year. The procedure for appointment in the said selection process was only interview as mentioned in condition no.6 of the advertisement and as admitted by the petitioners. Then now Rajasthan Rural Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2008) came into force in the year 2008 and under the Rules of 2008 initially 1228 posts of Rural Health Worker were advertised which was increased to 1435. the SBCWP No.1757/2009- Smt. Yashbala Rathore Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. alongwith other similar matters of ANM 8 criteria for selection for appointment to the said post was given in the advertisement in column no.6 of the general instructions. As per the said criteria, the candidates were to be appointed on the basis of interview. It has also been provided in condition no.6 itself that in case there will be excessive applications then the candidates will be called for interview by preparing the merit on the basis of marks obtained in Secondary or equivalent examination. All the petitioners applied for appointment to the said post of Rural Addl. Worker (Female) in response to the advertisement dated 18th July, 2008 and all the candidates were called for interview and they failed to succeed and, therefore, now have preferred these writ petitions to challenge the entire process of selection on various grounds. According to learned counsel for the petitioners Sh. PR Mehta appearing for number petitioners in number of writ petitions that there was no transparency in the process of appointment made by the respondents and the rules have not been followed resulting into total arbitrary appointments and also contrary to the Rules of 2008 and as per the Rule 25 of the Rules of 2008 the appointing authority shall prepare a list of the candidates whom, they consider suitable for appointment to the posts concerned, SBCWP No.1757/2009- Smt. Yashbala Rathore Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. alongwith other similar matters of ANM 9 arranged in order of merit and forward the same to the Government. The appointing authority was required to prepare a list also to the extent of 50% of the advertised vacancies in the light of proviso to Rule 25 so that if any need arises then the names may be recommended for appointment from the reserved list. In the present case, such lists of candidates either suitable for appointment or who were eligible to be put in reserved list have not been prepared and straightway list of selected candidates have been declared which is dated 18.2.2009 (Annex.4). Learned counsel Sh. PR Mehta further submitted that in the list Annex.4 it has not been disclosed what was the criteria on the basis of which, the candidates have been selected. The petitioners tried to obtain the basis on which the candidates have been selected but no information was given to the petitioners about this fact. It has also been submitted that reservation was made for Tribal Sub-Plan Area (hereinafter referred to as the TSP Area) and persons who were not from the TSP Area have been given appointment, which is apparent from the select list Annex.4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Jalore, Nagaur, Jaisalmer and Barmer are not the TSP Area, yet the candidates of these areas have been given appointment under the category of TSP Area and in the reserved SBCWP No.1757/2009- Smt. Yashbala Rathore Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. alongwith other similar matters of ANM 10 category of the seats. Learned counsel Sh. Mehta also submitted that the respondent-department itself issuing merit list of the General Nurse Male on contract basis under the NRHM Scheme showing percentage of marks obtained by the candidates, but in the present process of selection they did not disclose the percentage of marks obtained by the candidates and that has been done deliberately to give appointment arbitrarily. It is also submitted that petitioners are working continuously for number of years and discharging the same duties which are required to be discharged by the appointee appointed in the process of selection initiated by the advertisement dated 18.7.2008 and the petitioners are having experience of 4 to 6 years, yet they have not been regularized nor have been given appointment to the post referred above, whereas the petitioners are entitled to be regularized on the post concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in other fields, the State Government regularized the services of the contract teachers and particularly, who have been appointed under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodak Service Rules, 2008, then there is no reason for not regularizing the petitioners by way of absorption under the Rules of 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioners Sh. RS Saluja SBCWP No.1757/2009- Smt. Yashbala Rathore Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. alongwith other similar matters of ANM 11 appearing in SBCWP No.4033/2009 in addition to the arguments referred above submitted that under the Rules of 1965 though under Rule 19 it has been provided that the appointment shall be made on the sole basis of interview, yet the appointments were given by adjudging the suitability of the candidates by taking into account the service experience of the candidates etc and interview was only for the purpose of verification of the original documents which were required to be submitted to prove the eligibility of the candidates. The petitioners who were given appointment even on contract basis were also faced the interview in the year 2003 even for appointment for short period and that too, on contract basis wherein also, their documents were examined in the interview and they were given appointment on the basis of their merit adjudged by taking into account their educational qualification and experience in the trade. The petitioners believing that the same procedure will be adopted by the respondent-department while making appointment under Rule 2008, but this time, altogether different procedure was adopted by the respondents for giving appointment to the post of Ruler Health Worker (Female) under the Rules of 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioners Sh. RS Saluja relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court SBCWP No.1757/2009- Smt. Yashbala Rathore Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. alongwith other similar matters of ANM 12 delivered in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors etc etc Vs. State of Haryana & Ors etc. etc reported in AIR 1987 Supreme Court 454(1) wherein the high percentage marks of 33.3% and 22.2% marks for ex-service officer for viva voce test were declared unduly high and declared suffering from vice of arbitrariness. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that allocation of such a high percentage of marks as 33.3% opens the door wide for arbitrariness and in order to deminish, if not eliminate, the risk of arbitrariness, this percentage needs to be reduced, but here in this case, the sole criteria for appointment is interview and, therefore, the criteria adopted by the respondents is totally arbitrary and because of that arbitrariness, the petitioners have been discriminated by picking and choosing the candidates. Learned counsel for the petitioners Sh. RS Saluja also submitted that there may be large number of candidates and in short time they could not have been interviewed so as to judge the suitability of the candidates for the post. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sh. NS Charan appearing in SBCWP No.1847/2009 raised a different argument. According to him, the interview was not the sole criteria for appointment in the selection process initiated by the advertisement dated 18.7.2008 as in the opening language of the advertisement itself it has been mentioned SBCWP No.1757/2009- Smt. Yashbala Rathore Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. alongwith other similar matters of ANM 13 that the appointment will be given on the basis of seniority/interview and that procedure has not been followed by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners Sh. NS Charan in addition to the above also submitted that before preferring the writ petition, the petitioners gave notice to the respondents demanding disclosure of criteria adopted in process of selection, but respondents did not disclose the criteria. This court vide order dated 15th July, 2009 passed in SBCWP No.1537/2009 consolidated all the matters relating to the same subject referred above and, therefore, one reply filed by the State was accepted as reply for all the cases and the petitioners were permitted to file counter affidavit in case any occasion arises and this Court directed the State to produce the record for perusal of the court, which has been produced by learned Addl. Advocate General Sh. Anand Purohit. It has been contended by the State that the petitioners who were given appointment in earlier process of selection initiated by the advertisement Annex.1 dated 2nd April, 2003 were given appointment on the contract basis under RCH Project and such contractual engagement has to continue till the completion of project only and has SBCWP No.1757/2009- Smt. Yashbala Rathore Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. alongwith other similar matters of ANM 14 not created any right in favour of the petitioners for seeking regularization or absorption against posts notified for direct recruitment under the Rules of 2008. The post of Rural Health Worker (Female) is a post mentioned in column no.2 of Schedule-II appended to the Rules of 2008 and as per rules these posts are required to be filled in 100% by direct recruitment and qualification for same is Secondary standard with Health Worker Female Course passed. Thus, when a post is to be filled in 100% by direct recruitment then plea of regularization by absorption is not available. So far as challenge to the process of selection by the petitioners is concerned, it has been contended that the petitioners were fully aware that what will be the procedure for giving appointment to the post advertised vide advertisement dated 18th July, 2008 and, thereafter, they took a chance of their selection without there being any objection and, thereafter, when they failed, they have preferred the writ petitions to challenge the selection process. Once the candidate takes a chance of selection and appeared in the interview and declared unsuccessful then such candidate cannot challenge the process of selection on any ground. Learned counsel for the State relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court delivered in the case of Madan Lal & Ors Vs. State of SBCWP No.1757/2009- Smt. Yashbala Rathore Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. alongwith other similar matters of ANM 15 Jammu and Kashmir & Ors reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1088 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that allegation of the petitioners that they had fared better in the written test but were pushed down at interview, as based on merely suspicion having no factual basis particularly when there was no allegation of bias or mala fides against the member of the interview committee. In addition to the above legal objection, the respondents in reply submitted that for total 1435 vacancies, as many as 5228 candidates were called for interview and after interview select list of 1427 candidates was prepared. 7 posts meant for the Sahariya candidates could not be filled in, whereas one post was kept vacant as per the order of the High Court. Out of remaining 1314 posts, select list of 672, general candidates, 210 of SC candidates, 157 of ST candidates, 276 of OBC candidates, 43 of disabled persons, 179 of Ex-military personnel, 29 of outstanding players and 72 of widow candidates was prepared. Total 114 posts were kept for the candidates of tribal area, out of which as per the Government circular 45% for ST candidates of tribal area and 5% of SC candidates of tribal area and rest 50% for general candidates of tribal area has bee kept and accordingly out of 114 posts, select list of 57 for general candidates, 51 for SBCWP No.1757/2009- Smt. Yashbala Rathore Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. alongwith other similar matters of ANM 16 the ST candidates for tribal area and 6 for SC candidates of tribal area was prepared. According to the respondents, this select list has been prepared strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rules 24, 25 and 26 of the Rules of 2008. It