B.D. Agarwal, J.

1. All the aforesaid three writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment since the writ petitions are based on identical facts and the impugned order is one and the same in all the Writ Petitions.

2. Heard Shri C. Lalramzauva, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Shri M. Zothankhuma, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Smt. Helen Dawngliani, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. The Respondent No. 5 was the then Secretary, Mizoram State Information Commission (MISC) and also the Chairman of the D.P.C./S.C. for selection of Group C and D staff in the MISC. This Respondent, though filed his affidavit, no one has him represented during the course of argument.

3. I have also perused the pleadings and counter pleadings filed on behalf of the parties. During the course of hearing the relevant file of the Recruitment process was also perused.

4. The office of the Mizoram State Information Commission (for short, 'Commission') was constituted vide Notification dated 21.6.2006. By this Notification, posts of Ministerial staff and Group D posts were also sanctioned. Rule 9(b) of the Mizoram Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, 'RTI') prescribed that the Rules applicable to Mizoram Secretariat Services Rules, shall be applicable for the recruitment of the officers and staffs of the Commission. As per the Mizoram Subordinate Ministerial Services Rules, 1998, recruitment of Ministerial Staff is required to be done by a Committee known as DPC/Selection Committee and this composition has been laid down under Rule 14 (Annexure-10). Pursuant to the said Rules, a Selection Committee was constituted by the office of the State Information Commission (for short, 'SIC') vide order dated 21.05.2007. The committee included the Secretary of SIC; representative of the DP & AR, Govt. of Mizoram and Deputy Secretary, SIC as its Member-Secretary. The Secretary of SIC was the Chairman of the Selection Committee.

5. As per the Recruitment Rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Ministerial Staffs, like Assistants, UDCs and LDCs are required to be selected by holding written tests and viva-voce. However, by issuing Corrigendum Notification dated 6.6.2007, the State Chief Information Commissioner (for short, 'SCIC') withdrew the powers of DPC/SC for holding written examination and evaluation of answer scripts that was conferred under order dated 21.5.2007. On the basis of the aforesaid corrigendum order dated 6.6.2007, the competitive written examination was held by the Commission itself and power of the DPC/SC was limited to viva-voce of the candidates, selected by the Commission.

6. Accordingly, the DPC notification 365 candidates, selected by the Commission, for personal interview. But only 247 candidates were appeared. Interviews were held during the period 10.12.2007 to 30.12.2007 and after such interview; recommendations of the selected candidates were forwarded to the Commission on 04.02.2008. However, the recommendations were not accepted by the Respondent No. 1 and issued the impugned order dated 25.3.2008 cancelling the recommendations of the DPC/SC in toto. On the same date the Respondent No. 1 issued another order directing all the selected candidates to the post of UDCs, LDC and Grade IV posts to appear on certain dates with photographs, educational qualification certificates, birth certificates etc. and in the aforesaid notice, it was made clear that this notice shall be treated as 'Call Letters'. In this way, the MISC-Respondent No. 1 issued two letters on the same date. In the first letter it was mentioned that fresh DPC will be constituted, whereas in the second one by the same authority, Call Letters were issued and the candidates were directed to appear in the second and third week of April, 2008, without constituting a new D.P.C. These orders are under challenge in the aforesaid writ petitions. The Writ Petitions have been filed by the