A.K. MATHUR, J.—All these writ petitions involve a common question of law, therefore, they are disposed of by a common order.

2. For the convenient disposal of these writ petitions the facts mentioned in the case of Ashok Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (1) are taken into consideration.

3. Brief facts which are relevant for the consideration are that the Chief Engineer Irrigation, State of Rajasthan invited applications for filling 640 posts of Sub-Engineer (Diploma-holders), vide advertisement dated 25th of July, 1987. Petitioner who is a diploma holder and secured 63.8% marks and also in the mean time obtained B.E. in 1988 with 68.3 marks applied for the post in a pro-forma. It is alleged that the process of interview started in January 1988 and petitioner came to know that the person with a much less marks in diploma or degree have been called for interview, but he was not called for interview. Since petitioner was not invited for interview, therefore, he made a representation to the Chief Engineer on 24th January 1989 and then again on 17th of April 1989. When he did not receive any favourable response then he had rushed upto this Court for filing the present writ petition.

4. It is alleged that petitioner came to know that certain criteria have been laid down for short listing the application of the candidates who have applied in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement and in that he could not come, therefore, his application was rejected. Petitioner in this writ petition has challenged that criteria on verious grounds.

5. The writ petition was admitted and notice was given and in response thereof a detailed reply had been filed by the respondents. Respondents had submitted in its return that in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement, the department received 7570 applications. In order to short list this huge number of applications, a criterion was evolved and according to that criterion all the applications were scrutinised. The petitioner could not come in the merit, therefore, he was not called for interview. It is further submitted that the criterion laid down by the respondents was a rational criterion with a view to short list the applications and call those persons to the extent of five times the number of vacancies. But the petitioner could not come in that five times number. As such he was not called for interview.

6. Mr. Mridul, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the criterion which has been laid down was not published, therefore, it is not open for the respondents to rely upon such criterion. Learned counsel submitted that the criterion is a wholly arbitrary, vague and contrary to Rules. In order to examine these allegations of Mr. Mridul it is necessary to know what exact criterion was laid down by the Government. In the earlier return filed by the respondents they did not give the criterion but subsequently, during the course of arguments Mr. Joshi learned Additional Advocate General placed before me the criterion and thereafter the same was also placed on record by filing two additional affidavits of Mr. R.C. Agrawal Executive Engineer. The criterion reads as under:-

"i) Qualifications :

a) Secondary/Hr. Secondary 05 marks

b) Diploma in respective Engineering Branch 25 marks

Sub-Total 30 marks

ii) Experiences :

10 marks have been assigned for the experience gained by the candidates in respective Engineering branch.

02 marks are to be awarded per year for a maximum period of five years and experience is to be counted on equivalent post (Supervisor/Ju. Engineer/ Work-charge/Apprentice).

10 marks

"2. EXPERIENCE: Sub-total 10 marks

02 marks are to be awarded per year for a maximum period of 05 years, after passing qualifying examination in respective engineering branch. Experience is to be counted on equivalent post i.e. Supervisor/Junior Engineer etc. in :

10

i) Govt. Semi - Govt./Autonomous Organisation/Deptt. serving in capacity of:-

Adhoc/Offig./temporary

...... weightage 100%

Work-charge/apprentice

.....

Click Here to Read the rest of this document