JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. By this writ petition, Petitioners seek the following reliefs:

"A. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby calling forth to this Hon'ble Court all the records pertaining to the issue involved in the present Writ Petition especially the records pertaining to the selection and appointment to the post of Executive Officers in the Lok Sabha Secretariat in pursuance of the Circular published in Sept. 2001 and Circular No. 25072 dated 18.01.2002;

B. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the Respondent No. 1 & 2 to treat the examination conducted in 2002 as Limited Departmental Examination in the light of the provisions of the R&CS Order No. (PDA 741/89) dated 15.06.1989 and Circular No. 25072 dated 18.01.2002;

C. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the Respondent No. 1 & 2 to appoint the Petitioners from the date on which any of persons amongst those named in the select panel issued in April 2003, was actually appointed to the post of Executive Officer, in the Secretariat;

D. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the Respondent No. 1 & 2 to grant to the Petitioners all the promotions and other service benefits as have been given to Sh. H. Ram Prakash who was wrongly and illegally declared as the topper of the Select Panel;

E. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the Respondent No. 1 & 2 to fix responsibility and take appropriate departmental and criminal action(s) against the guilty officers for committing illegalities, fraud, abuse of official, in the selection process;

F. Award the cost of the proceedings in favour of the Petitioners and against the Respondents."

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts relevant to decide the writ petition are that in September, 2001, an Advertisement No. 16(N) was issued by Joint Recruitment Cell of Respondent No.1/Lok Sabha Secretariat inviting applications for the post of Executive/Legislative/Committee/Protocol Officer. Petitioners applied against the advertisement. On 18.01.2002, Department Circular No.25072 was issued inviting applications from eligible departmental candidates, treating the said examination as Departmental Examination in the first round. Being employees of the Secretariat, Petitioners claim that they were eligible for consideration as departmental candidates.

3. It is averred in the petition that as per the Scheme of Examination, minimum cut-off marks were prescribed in January-February, 2002 for each component of Paper-I as 50%, 45% and 40% for candidates belonging to UR, OBC and SC/ST categories respectively. Similar cut-off marks were prescribed for Papers-II to V for eligibility for interview and there was no provision for relaxation in cut-off marks. In February, 2002, written exam was conducted wherein 4 candidates, who either did not have requisite qualification or work experience, were allowed to appear. In November, 2002, Administration Branch conveyed that 23 vacancies were to be filled up in the selection process.

4. It is stated that thereafter, a merit list was prepared in accordance with the originally fixed qualifying cut-off marks and only 14 candidates including both the Petitioners were shown to have cleared all the papers on the originally fixed cut-off marks. However, with ulterior motive to select favourite candidates, who failed to pass as per the original cut-off marks, a proposal was moved to seek relaxation in qualifying marks and the proposal was accepted, as a result of which 26 ineligible and failed candidates were called for interview along with the Petitioners. In December, 2002, interviews were conducted and on 04.04.2003, the result was declared but the Petitioners were not selected.

5. As per the chronology of dates and events, representations were made by the Petitioners between April to August, 2003 but their fate was never known. On 14.09.2003,