1. The petitioners, in these batch cases, hoped to be appointed as Motor Vehicle Inspectors. The post of Motor Vehicle Inspectors was lying vacant for a very long time. A writ application was filed and finally the State Government took a decision to begin the process of appointment of Motor Vehicle Inspectors. There were 59 vacant posts against which 183 applications were received. The advertisement for the said purpose was published in the year 2007. After scrutiny of the applications, 9 applications were found to be valid whereas the rest 174 applications were rejected. The rejection of 174 applications led to flood of writ applications being filed before this Court which are CWJC No. 2371 of 2010 and its analogous cases. On 18.2.2010, this Court while considering the writ applications has observed that "miniscule number of candidates who have been found to be called for the interview and the large scale finding of ineligibility, the Commission in all fairness proposes to re-scrutinize the applications including those nine who have been called for interview to take a fresh decision by a committee headed by the Secretary of the Commission and two Senior Officers from the Department of Transport and Personnel and then issue fresh interview calls to those who fulfil the conditions of the advertisement". It was also ordered that after the scrutiny, the Commission will hold the interviews of eligible candidates on 12th April, 2010. On re- scrutiny, only 20 candidates were found eligible. The interviews began on 12th April, 2010 as directed by this Court.

2. Being aggrieved by the re-scrutiny and the reasons for rejection, these cases have been filed challenging the reasons for rejecting the candidature of the persons who seek to be appointed as Motor Vehicle Inspectors.

3. I shall, therefore, first deal with the reasons of rejection of the individual cases and then give finding regarding the facts of the case.

CWJC No. 6157 of 2010:

4. There are two petitioners in this case, namely, Sohan Choudhary and Rama Sis Manjhi. By Annexure-4, the petitioner was found ineligible on the ground that in the certificate showing his experience, the words repair, overhauling and inspection has not been mentioned. The experience certificate is contained in Annexure-3 which shows that the petitioner was employee of Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Limited since 11th January, 1999 as Junior Electrical Engineer. He joined in the maintenance wing on account of his being mechanical engineer with automobile elective paper. He was working with light & heavy vehicles both diesel and petrol. His work was with respect to all kinds of vehicles.

5. The case of Rama Sis Manjhi will be considered later.

CWJC No. 5854 of 2010:

6. The petitioner was not found eligible for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector on the ground that the experience certificate does not mention the words repairing, overhauling and inspection. The certificates of the petitioner are annexed to the application vide Annexure-8 series. The experience certificate issued by the Mithila Motors shows that the petitioner was working as an Automobile Service Engineer for the last eight years. It is said that he has sufficient knowledge of engine maintenance.

CWJC No. 5859 of 2010:

7. The application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the experience certificate does not include the word repair which has been mentioned in the advertisement. In the experience certificate, as contained in Annexure-4, it is mentioned that he was engaged in maintenance, overhauling and inspection of heavy carriers including the light vehicles. The second certificate granted by Motorkraft indicates that he worked as Supervisor and was engaged in the maintenance, supervising and inspection.

CWJC No. 5953 of 2010:

8. The application of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that his experience certificate does not contain the words maintenance, overhauling and inspection whereas the second certificate g