SIDHU, J.-This judgment will deal with all the thirteen connected appeals listed above. These are special appeal under sec. 18, Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949. They have been filed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short the Commission), from the judgment, dated, March 29, 1982, by a learned Single Judge of this Court, thereby allowing 18 connected writ petitions and consequently issuing several directions to the Commission commanding it inter alia, to call the writ petitioners for interview with a view to adjudging their suitability for appointment to certain posts, regardless of their failure to qualify for such interview in the written examination held for the purpose.

2. The material facts are not in dispute. These may be shortly stated herewith reference to the writ petitions of Miss Damyanti Dadich as typical of all other petitions. Miss Damyanti Dadich who will here in-after be referred to as the petitioner, holds a first class Masters Degree and a Ph.D. degree, earned from the University of Rajasthan in 1973 and 1979, respectively. She applied for the post of a lecturer in Hindi in response to an advertisement published by the Commission on April 4, 1980, inviting applications for direct recruitment to such posts in several subjects, including Hindi, in accordance with the Rajasthan Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules 1971 (hereinafter to be called the Rules). The advertisement made it clear that in the event of the number of applications being too large the Commission may, if it considered it necessary to do so, hold a written examination by way of a screening test and call for interview only those examinees who pass the examination scoring such marks as may be prescribed by the Commission.

3. All the petitioner in the 18 writ petitions took the written examination held in October, 1981, but failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks with the result that they were not called for interview. In March, 1982, when the Commission had either already prepared or was in the process of preparing the list of candidates whom they considered suitable for appointment to these posts, the petitioner and others with similar qualifications, filed their separate writ petitions for orders, inter alia, quashing the result of the written screening test held in October, 1981, for perpetual injunction restraining the Commission from holding such tests in future and from preparing any panel and recommending any names for appointment to these posts on the basis of the process of selection commencing with the advertisement, dated April 4, 1980 and ending with the interviews, held on the basis of the impugned screening test, in January, 1982. The petitioners also prayed for mandamus directing the Commission to call them for interview for adjudging their suitability for various posts regardless of their failure to qualify for such interviews in the written examination.

4. The petitioner pleaded as many as twenty two grounds in the writ petition in support her claim to the aforementioned relief and other relief specified in clauses (a) to (h) of the prayer clause. A perusal of the impugned judgment made by the learned Single Judge would, however show that only three grounds were urged before him on behalf of all the writ petitioners including the petitioner. The three grounds urged before the learned Single Judge were: —

(i) The academic qualification, prescribed by the University of Rajasthan under the Rules, and advertised by the Commission, would on their true construction, reveal that candidates, like the petitioners, who hold Masters degree with a minimum of 54% marks, and a Ph. D./M. Phil/ M. Litt. degree, are entitled to be called for interview straight-away, and that they cannot be lawfully clubbed with candidates holding a Master degree alone and cannot be compelled to take and pass the written examination by way of a screening test as a pre-condition to qualify for the interview.

(ii) The advertisement dated

Click Here to Read the rest of this document