1. Nine petitions captioned above were heard together and are treated for disposal by this common judgment as they constitute a group, involving similar facts and identical issues.

2. The petitioners were the aspirants for appointment to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor. Having fared unsuccessful in the recruitment process by unable to meet with the qualifying criteria for selection, they filed the present petitions seeking to set aside the declaration of result by the respondent Gujarat Public Service Commission, as also to get set aside the consequential steps including the preparation of final selection list. The further prayer made was to declare that the prescription of minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce test was illegal. The petitioners want themselves to be considered as duly selected candidates for the appointment to the posts.

2.1 Each of the petitioners stood unqualified as could not obtain minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce and personality test. The petitioner of Special Civil Application No.12701 of 2016 got 269 marks in the written test but could score 17 marks in the viva voce which was below the minimum qualifying 25 marks. She belonged to S.E.B.C. Category. Special Civil Application No.12303 of 2016 was filed by 15 petitioners who also having been not been able to score 25 marks in the oral test, stood unsuccessful. Same was the reason for disqualification of the three petitioners of Special Civil Application No.12617 of 2016.

2.2 Four were the petitioners in Special Civil Application No.13056 of 2016 who obtained 237, 260, 292 and 267 marks in the written test, but having got 20, 13, 12 and 20 marks respectively in the viva voce, they were declared failed. Petitioners of Special Civil Application No.12762 of 2016 and Special Civil Application No.15553 of 2016 had incurred disqualification on the same count. The petitioner of Special Civil Application No.12441 of 2016 obtained 298 marks in the written examination but only 18 marks in the viva voce. The petitioner of Special Civil Application No.14425 of 2016 got 297 marks in the written examination but failed to obtain minimum marks in the oral test, resultantly treated disqualified; same happened in case of petitioner of Special Civil Application No.13679 of 2016.

3. Detailing of relevant fats of the case necessarily reflects on the important aspects of the dispute, and often implicitly responds to the contentions in the controversy. The facts, therefore, may be stated. The Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC) issued advertisement on 12th February, 2014 inviting applications for recruitment to 554 posts of Assistant Public Prosecutor, Class II. Looking at the figures of the category-wise posts to be filled in, total posts in General Category were 288 out of which 86 posts were for women. 39 posts were in Scheduled Caste category inclusive of 12 for women of that category. For Scheduled Tribe category there were 78 posts and out of them, 23 were for women. 149 posts inclusive 45 for women were for Socially and Educationally Backward Class. Amongst the total posts, there was also reservation provided for physically handicapped and Ex-servicemen.

3.1 Instruction 7 in the advertisement outlined for the benefit of the candidates the details of examination to be conducted in the recruitment process. Part I written examination was to consist of five different question papers of total 700 marks relating to the subjects of languages of Gujarati and English, different branches of law, the law of pleadings, and the Constitution of India. Part II examination was to be the viva voce and personality test comprising of 75 marks. The Commission had fixed 25 marks as minimum qualifying marks out of total 75 marks under Rule 12(3) of the recruitment rules.

3.2 As per the stand of the respondent – GPSC on the basis of the aforesaid Rule, qualifying standard of minimum marks was fixed for different categories to be obtained in the written examination