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 s