JUDGMENT :

1. The common issue involved in all these writ petitions relates to claim for appointment to the post of Constable (General Duty) in pursuance to advertisement dated 05.02.2011. This is the second round of litigation subsequent to representation on the issue, earlier directed, having been dismissed. As common issue is involved in all these writ petitions, with the consent of the parties, all the petitions were heard together and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 26389/2018 was taken as lead file.

2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the rejection of their representation vide order dated 22.02.2018 and non-consideration of their candidature for appointment to the post of Constable (GD) in pursuance to advertisement dated 05.02.2011, the present bunch of writ petitions are filed seeking the following relief:

“(i) By issuing a writ of mandamus for Appointment of petitioner on the post of Constable (GD) in CISF, BSF, CRPF, SSB, Assam Rifles / ITBP against left out vacancy according to other similarly situated persons on the basis of note / condition no 3 & 4 of the permission letter mentioned as in para no 3 & 4 of the permission letter and the as per para 10 sub para iv of impugned advertisement “the commission with the approval of the Ministry of Home Affairs shall have the discretion to divert candidates from surplus State to deficit State” with all consequential benefit as per higher merit position or also against vacant post available with the department same vacant post should not be carry forward or fill up against the vacancy of next against vacant post available with the department same vacant post should not be carry forward or fill up against the vacancy of next recruitment year as year 2015 or year 2017

(ii) and the impugned order dated 55/02/2018 (Annexure-18) may kindly be declared arbitrary, unconstitutional and quashed and set aside

(iii) the cost of the petition be awarded in favour of the petitioners

(iv) Any other appropriate writ order of direction which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioners.”

BACKGROUND

3. In the earlier round of litigation, the petition seeking similar relief was disposed of vide order dated 17.05.2017 by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in SBCWP No. 2867/2017 titled as ‘Kashi Ram vs. Union of India & Anr’, and other connected matters, with the following directions:

“(a) That all petitioners shall appear before Secretary, Staff Selection Commission and they shall submit comprehensive detailed representation giving details of the candidates who being less meritorious have been appointed.

(b) That the petitioners in the representation to be filed shall be at liberty to demolish the arguments raised by the respondents that less meritorious persons because of belonging to border area or of being more in age or for any other reasons have been given appointment.

(c) The petitioners shall also be entitled to raise arguments that wrongly candidates from the State of Rajasthan were diverted to other States even they were less meritorious or qua meritorious persons route of diversion to the other state was not followed. Petitioners shall be also at liberty to ventilate any other grievance they have regarding the recruitment process undertaken by Regional Director, Staff Selection Commission, Northern Region. The Secretary, Staff Selection Commission, shall hold a fact finding inquiry into the allegations leveled against the officials who at the relevant time were posted in the Regional Directorate of Staff Selection Commission, Northern Region.

(d) Secretary, Staff Selection Commission, before decision of the representation shall publish a list of all candidates who appeared in the State of Rajasthan for the recruitment to the post of Constable (General Duty) in paramilitary forces in pursuance to impugned ad