The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for petitioners to provide tangible evidence to substantiate allegations of mala fide and arbitrariness in the selection process.

JUDGMENT

1. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue involved in these writ petitions has been considered and decided by this court in the matter of Jugal Kishor Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5853/2022 along with other connected matters) wherein on 16.08.2022, the following order was passed:-

"1. These writ petitions since involve common question, hence with consent of the parties, have been heard together and are being decided by the present common order.

2. As prayed, the facts have been taken into consideration from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5853/2022 and the prayer made therein reads as under:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may very graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and further be pleased to :

i) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, directs the respondents to examine the Chip No.T-42004 of petitioner and thereby give proper marks in the 100 meter race and further call for the Videography recorded during the test of Physical Test which was held 13.02.2022 at Maharana Bhupal Stadium, Chetak Circle, Udaipur and the respondents further directs to declare the separate marks of petitioner of all three events i.e. 100 meter race, Long Jump and Chinning Up of Physical Test for the post of Sub Inspector.

ii) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby direct the respondents to call the petitioner in the interview process and thereby give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Sub Inspector with all consequential benefits, because the petitioner has completed all three measurement/events.

iii) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the result dated 11.04.2022 may kindly be quashed and set aside and respondents be directed to issue fresh result by including the roll no. of petitioner for the post of Sub Inspector.

iv) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the respondents may kindly be declared illegal by which they have wrongly calculated the marks of the petitioner.

v) Pass any other appropriate order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner.

vi) Cost of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioner."

3. Brief facts of the case are that in pursuance to the advertisement dated 03.02.2021 the petitioners applied for the post of Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander and after being successful in the written examination they were called for the Physical Efficiency Test (hereinafter to be referred as PET) in which all the petitioners appeared, thereafter, the respondents called the successful candidates for the interview but since name of the petitioners did not find place in the select list, hence the petitioners approached this Court by filing present writ petitions.

4. Counsels for the petitioners submitted that the respondents have wrongly not included their names in the list of successful candidates of PET. Counsels further submitted that videography of all the events of the PET has been done by the respondents and the chips were also provided and the petitioners have also completed the race within the prescribed time which is clear from the chip which shows about their running time as recorded therein. Counsels further submitted that despite having performed better than the other selected candidates, even then, name of the petitioners have not been included in the select list. Counsels further submitted that a news item was also published in the newspaper regarding wrongful selection of the candidates by the respondents. Counsels further submitted that no transparency & fairness has been maintained by the respondents in the selection process. Counsels further submitted that the respondents have failed to separately declare the marks of the petitioners towards Long Jump, 100 Meter Race and C