( 1 ) IT is the usual apathy of the Government which has led to this group of petitions. The controversy centres around the implementation of a particular examination rule which this Court had found "not happily worded". The observation made by the Division Bench of this Court has not caught the attention of the Government or the Government has not thought it necessary to pay heed to the observations made by the Bench. The result is this group of petitions.

( 2 ) THE petitioners in these three writ petitions are similarly situated and have identical challenge against the Select List dated 18th August, 2000 published by the Gujarat Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the commission") for appointment to the posts of Executive Engineer and Deputy executive Engineer in Gujarat Engineering Services (Class-I and Class-II ).

( 3 ) BY advertisement dated 1st February, 1996, the Commission invited applications for combined competitive examination for appointment in Gujarat engineering Services (Class-I and Class-II ). Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioners and others had applied for selection and appointment to the Gujarat engineering Services (Class-I and Class-II ). All the petitioners appeared for the competitive examination held by the Commission. Having passed the written test, the petitioners were called for interview. The petitioners, however, failed to secure minimum qualifying marks at the said interview. The petitioners were, therefore, none suited for selection to the posts in Gujarat Engineering Services (Class-I and Class-II ). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petitions.

( 4 ) MR. Vasant, the petitioner No. 2 in Special Civil Application No. 9730 of 2000, has appeared in person. He has submitted that the appointment to the gujarat Engineering Services (Class-I and Class-II) is governed by the statutory rules framed by the Government in exercise of the power conferred by proviso to art 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 4 of the Examination Rules appended to the said Recruitment Rules empowers the Commission to hold combined competitive examination for selection and appointment to the posts in Gujarat engineering Services (Class-I and Class-II ). Under Rule 4 of the said Examination rules, Commission is empowered to fix the qualifying marks in any or all subjects and also for viva voce. In the selection procedure in question, the Commission gave written test of a total of 900 marks. The Commission fixed different qualifying marks for different categories of candidates namely General category, socially and Economically Backward class category, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled tribes and Physically handicapped. The candidates who secured qualifying marks in the written test were called for viva voce consisting of 125 marks. For viva voce also, the Commission fixed different qualifying marks for different categories of candidates. Only those of the candidates who had secured the qualifying marks at the viva voce were declared selected. The petitioners failed to secure the qualifying marks at the viva voce. They were, therefore, without reference to the marks obtained by them at the written test, not included in the merit list of successful candidates. Thus, the result of the written test has been undone and the selection is made on the result of the viva voce alone. The said selection procedure was discriminatory and calls for interference by this Court. Mr. Vasant has, in support of his contentions, relied upon the judgment in the matter of L. V. Ashara v. Gujarat Public Service Commission, Ahmedabad, 1985 (2) SLJ 83 and of the honble Supreme Court in the matters of Praveen Singh v. State of Punjab and ors. , AIR 2000 SC 3299 and of this Court in the matter of Barot Jignesh lakshmansinh and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. , 2003 (2) GLR 1727. Learned advocate Mr. Bhairavia has, in addition, relied upon the judgment of the Honble supreme Court i