Hon'ble SIRADHANA, J.—The subject matter of the intra-court appeals is the common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 31st May, 2013; whereby the learned Single Judge allowing a bunch of writ applications made the following directions:-

“(1) that RPSC shall make fresh evaluation of the answer-sheets of the candidates by deleting questions No.13, 18, 25 and 43 and changing answer to question No.77, by taking option (1) as correct, all of C-series, and corresponding questions in A-series, B-series and D-series and on that basis prepare fresh merit list;

(2) that RPSC shall on that basis prepare a list of candidates, who fall within three times the number of vacancies plus applying the bunching principle;

(3) that RPSC shall thereafter conduct interviews of such candidates in that list, who have already not been interviewed;

(4) that RPSC shall thereafter prepare a combined select list of the candidates, who were already interviewed and those who are interviewed pursuant to this judgment in the order of merit, and forward the same to the government for appointment;

(5) that such exercise shall be undertaken and completed by RPSC within three months from the date copy of this order is received by them.”

2. The essential facts in brief for appreciation of the controversy are that an advertisement No. 6/11-12 dated 26.05.2011 was issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'RPSC', for short); inviting applications from the eligible candidates for consideration of their candidature for appointment to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II (hereinafter referred to as 'the APP Gr. II', for short) against 159 vacancies. The advertisement was responded by 15,776 applications. The Rajasthan Public Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1978', for short) contemplates an interview as a sole criterion for selection and appointment on the post of APP Gr. II. The RPSC is vested with the discretion to conduct screening test for short-listing of the candidates and accordingly, a written examination was conducted on 1st December, 2011, for the candidates intending consideration of their candidature. However, only 9,191 candidates appeared in the screening test conducted through a written examination.

3. The written examination consisted of 100 objective type questions covering relevant subjects to test the knowledge of law of the candidates. Each question was provided with four options as answer and the candidate was to tick mark the one answer as correct of the four options. The question booklet supplied to the candidates was divided into different series as A, B, C and D wherein though the questions were the same but in the changed order. Negative marking to the extent of 1/3rd from the mark of each correct question for each wrong answer, was a condition specifically stipulated in the instructions; for any ambiguity/mistake the English version was to be treated as standard.

4. Soon after the written examination, RPSC received number of representations disputing the framing of 19 questions. The representations were subjected to the scrutiny by an expert committee, which in turn recommended deletion of 9 questions; being questions No. 6, 22, 23, 27, 25, 64, 73, 78 and 80 of Series-A. As a consequence of deletion of 9 questions, 100 marks were equally distributed for remaining 91 questions and thus, value of each question increased from 1 mark to 1.09 marks. Result of the screening/written test was declared by the RPSC on 3rd February, 2013 (for short, 'the first result'), wherein 502 candidates were declared successful for interview.

5. Three writ applications were preferred before this Court at the Principal Seat, Jodhpur, alleging irregularities and illegalities with some details, in the written examination and further assailing the framing of the question paper as 40 questions out of 100 were picked up from the notes prepared by one Professo