JUDGMENT :

ANAND SHARMA, J.

1. Since both the above writ petitions involve similar facts, grievance, cause of action and identical questions of law, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties as also for the sake of convenience, the facts pleaded in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3098/2026 are being taken into consideration for adjudication of the controversy involved in the present matters.

2. The petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3098/2026 has prayed for following relief:

“In these circumstances, it is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to accept this writ petition and:-

i) the impugned result dated 16.01.2026 alongwith impugned merit-wise list of candidates and impugned amended result dated 06.02.2026 not selecting humble petitioner on the post of Class-IV Employee in pursuance to advertisement dated 12.12.2024 for securing negative marks may kindly be declared erroneous, illegal and arbitrary and therefore, same may kindly be quashed and set aside;

ii) The respondents may kindly be directed by issuing appropriate, writ, order or direction in the nature thereof:

a) To treat humble petitioner eligible for appointment on the post of Class-IV Employee in OBC-NCL (Ex-servicemen) category if falls within merit in his category and otherwise suitable for appointment; and

b) To select humble petitioner for appointment on the post of Class-IV Employee in OBC-NCL (Ex-servicemen) category if falls within merit in his category and otherwise suitable for appointment; and

c) To grant appointment to humble petitioner on the post of Class-IV Employee in OBC-NCL (Ex-servicemen) category with all consequential benefits if falls within merit in his category and otherwise suitable for appointment.

iii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly also be passed in favour of the Petitioner.”

3. Petitioner has come out with a case that the respondent- Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Board’) issued an advertisement dated 12.12.2024 for recruitment to 52,453 posts of Class-IV Employees under the Rajasthan Class IV Service (Recruitment and Other Service Conditions) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Rules of 1999’). As per the advertisement, the recruitment process comprised a written examination carrying 200 marks with negative marking to the extent of one-third marks for every incorrect answer. It was further stipulated that in case the examination was conducted in multiple shifts, the process of normalisation would be adopted. Subsequently, corrigendum advertisements dated 03.03.2025 and 12.01.2026 were issued increasing the number of posts and revising the category-wise bifurcation.

4. The petitioner, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3098/2026, claiming himself to be eligible and qualified, applied under the OBC- NCL (Ex-servicemen) category and appeared in the written examination conducted on 19.09.2025 in the morning shift. The examination was conducted in six shifts between 19.09.2025 and 21.09.2025. After publication of the model answer key dated 17.10.2025 and declaration of the result dated 16.01.2026 along with the final answer key dated 20.01.2026, the petitioner found that he had secured normalised marks of (-0.6508) and was not selected. Similar grievance has also been raised by the petitioner in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4812/2026, who appeared in the aforesaid recruitment process under OBC-NCL (Widow) category.

5. According to the petitioners, despite vacancies remaining unfilled in their respective categories, they were not selected merely on account of securing negative marks, although neither the advertisement, nor the relevant rules prescribed any minimum qualifying marks for selection. It is contended that in the absence of any prescribed minimum benchmark, candida