Deepak Gupta, J. - This bunch of petitions is directed against the selections made by the respondents-State for admission to Junior Basic Training (for short: JBT) Course. The respondent No. 1 Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education issued an advertisement on 20th January, 2004 inviting applications for entrance test to the JBT course. On the basis of this entrance test, 1800 successful candidates were to be granted admission in various institutions all over the State. In this advertisement, the seats were distributed district-wise. The advertisement also prescribed reservations for various categories. The essential educational qualification for appearing in the test was 10+2 or equivalent. As per the general rules/guidelines, merit was to be prepared district-wise/category-wise by the board and the candidates were to be interviewed by the Selection Committee(s) at the Sub Divisional Headquarters. The general rule/guideline No. 5 of the advertisement provides that JBT training does not guarantee government job(s) after completion of the training. Condition No. 17 of General Rules/Guidelines for JBT Entrance Test reads as under:— “17. Question Paper.—There shall be one question paper having questions of multiple-choice type, carrying 75 questions of one mark each to be attempted within 30 minutes. The subjects along with the distribution of marks shall be as under: Subjects Marks (i) Hindi 20 (ii) English 20 (iii) Numerical Ability 20 (iv) General Awareness 15 Personal interview : 15 Special marks to the candidate belonging to rural areas 10 Grand Total : 100" The admission test (written examination) was conducted on 18.4.2004 in which all the petitioners appeared. The petitioners passed in the admission test and were called for interviews. It is their common contention that the interview was only a sham which lasted only for one or two minutes. The result of the entrance examination comprising of the written test and the Interview, was declared on 16.10.2004 through publication of roll numbers of selected candidates in the news papers. Immediately thereafter the present petitions were filed by the unsuccessful candidates challenging the result. The first petition was filed on 18.10.2004 and on 19.10.2004 an ad-interim order was passed restraining the respondents from giving effect to the result impugned in the petition or taking any consequential action based upon such a result. In these petitions, initially two points were canvassed before us: (i) The petitioners challenged the award of 10 marks for candidates belonging to rural areas. It was contended that the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and awarding 10 marks to candidates belonging to rural areas is against Article 14 of the Constitution and, therefore, such action of the State is void and illegal; (iii) The second contention was with regard to the award of 15 marks for personal interview and it was contended that the same is legally and constitutionally invalid. We had heard the writ petitions in detail and thereafter this Court had passed a detailed order on 7th January, 2005 with regard to the aforesaid two contentions. As far as the first question regarding allotting marks for candidates belonging to rural area, this Court held as follows: "In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in various judgments cited above which has been explained and crystalized in the judgment in Kailash Chands case (supra), there can be no manner of doubt that the award of 10 marks to candidates belonging to rural areas is illegal and ultra vires the provisions of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution and suffers from the vice of arbitrariness." With regard to the contention regarding allotment of marks for the interview, after considering various judgments of the Supreme Court, this court held as follows: "Taking into consideration the entire law cited before us, it is no doubt true that the Supreme Court has held that viva voce test can be held to