Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—Writ petition no.689/2013 has been filed by petitioners, namely, Dr. Deepak Najkani, Dr. Sanjay Choudhary, Dr. (Mrs.) Asma Khan, Dr. Sangeeta Saini and Dr. Arvind Kumar Kumawat, for quashment of selection made by respondent Rajasthan Public Service Commission on the basis of interview on the post of Homeopathic Chikitsak pursuant to advertisement no.4/2010-11. Further prayer is made for quashment of selection of respondents no.3 to 8 on the said post pursuant to aforementioned advertisement, with a direction to respondents to declare the petitioners to be duly selected on the said post or, in alternative, to hold fresh interview by giving weightage to the marks obtained in written examination confining the marks for interview only upto 15%.

2. Writ petition no.9392/2013 has been filed by petitioner Praveen Kumar for a direction to respondents to consider his candidature for appointment on the post of Homeopathic Chikitsak in Ayurveda Department of Government of Rajasthan, pursuant to advertisement no.4/2010-11, declaring him eligible for the same. Further prayer is made for quashment of selection made by interview for the post of Homeopathic Chikitsak pursuant to aforesaid advertisement with a direction to respondents no.1 and 2 to hold fresh interview for the said post giving weightage to the marks obtained in the written examination and confining the marks of interview only upto 15%.

3. Respondent Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short, 'the RPSC') issued an advertisement no.4/2010-11 dated 08.03.2011 inviting on-line applications from eligible candidates for filling up various posts of medical services in the State of Rajasthan. The said advertisement also invited applications for filling up 43 posts of Homeopathic Chikitsak under the Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homoeopathic and Natural Medical Service Rules, 1973 (for short, 'the Rules of 1973'), out of which 7 posts were reserved for Other Backward Class category and 1 post was reserved for disabled category of Locomotor Disability and Cerebral Palsy (L.D. & C.P.) & O.L. (one leg affected) or B.L. (both legs affected but not arms). The reservation for disabled category was horizontal and it was further provided that the disability must be above 40%.

4. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the RPSC received large number of applications for appointment. The RPSC conducted a written examination for screening them. The petitioners also appeared in the said examination held on 30.06.2011, result of which was declared on 06.07.2012. The result was displayed in the website of the RPSC. In all 184 candidates, including the petitioners, were shown successful. The interviews were held from 03.12.2012 to 14.12.2012. It was clearly mentioned in the call letters that request for change of date of interview will not be entertained.

5. Shri A.K. Bhandari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners in writ petition no.689/2013, and Shri Hoshiyar Singh Arya, learned counsel appearing for petitioner in writ petition no.9392/2013, have argued that large scale irregularities and illegalities were committed in the process of interview. The appointments were based entirely on interview. The law is well settled that appointments cannot be made only on the basis of interview. When the written examinations have been conducted by the RPSC, there is no reason why no weightage should be given to the marks obtained in the written examination. The marks of both i.e. of written as well as interview, should be considered for preparation of merit list. No weightage was given to the marks secured by the candidates in the written examination. Learned counsel for the petitioners in this connection relied on judgments of the Supreme Court in Tridip Kumar Dingal and Others vs. State of West Bengal and Others – (2009) 1 SCC 768, Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi – (1981) 1 SCC 722 and Praveen Singh vs. State of Punjab – (2000) 8 SCC 633.

6. It is argued that interview board was c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document