The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of applications for trivial deficiencies in the recruitment process was not justified, and the court directed the official respondents to consider the case of one petitioner for appointment, while upholding the rejection of another petitioner's application for substantive non-compliance with the advertisement notification.

GITA MITTAL, J.

1. With the consent of all counsels, these three appeals are taken up for consideration.

2. Three appeals being LPA Nos. 160/2018, 174/2018 & 204/2018 have been filed before this court by the appellants, all assailing the order dated 20th August 2018 passed in SWP No. 01/2014. Inasmuch as the challenges premises on the same factual basis and to the same judgment, we are taking up these three appeals together for consideration with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

3. So far as the factual narration is concerned, the same is noted hereafter:

An Advertisement Notification was published in the Employment News in its edition dated 5-11 May, 2012 inviting applications for 13 posts of Fireman with the break up as:-

Unreserved	07
OBC	03
SC	01
ST	02

4. It is noteworthy to note that out of the 13 posts, one vacancy of Fireman stood reserved for ex-man. The minimum qualification prescribed in the advertisement notification was Matriculation or equivalent. The candidates were also required to possess laid down physical standards. So far as the selection process is concerned, the candidates were to be subjected to physical endurance test which was of qualifying nature.

5. Sudesh Kumar and Surinder Kumar had submitted their application forms for recruitment to the posts of Firemen. Sudesh Kumar has claimed that he was engaged as a Casual Labourer with the respondents in January, 2010, while Surinder Kumar claimed that he had been so engaged since August 2008. It was further claimed that they had been in continuous and uninterrupted service with the official respondents since their initial engagement.

6. We may note is that the selection process which every candidate has to undergo stands notified vide Government of India Letter No. 15392/SOP/MO-4(Civ)(a) dated 27th July 2005 which include the following tests:-

(i)	Physical Test
(ii)	Written Examination
(iii)	Medical Examination
(iv)	Interview

7. Inasmuch as the application forms of Sudesh Kumar and Surinder Kumar were not entertained, and subsequently even rejected, the petitioners were not allowed to participate in the selection process. It is urged by these two persons that they were not even informed of the reasons for rejection of their application forms. Aggrieved by this action on the part of the official respondents, Sudesh Kumar and Surinder Kumar filed a writ petition bearing SWP No. 835/2013 wherein an interim order dated 17th April 2013 was passed prohibiting the official respondents from finalizing the selection process.

8. It is the submission on behalf of these two writ petitioners that in violation of the specific directions issued by this Court, the official respondents finalized the selection process and even issued a select list. In this backdrop, Sudesh Kumar and Surinder Kumar were compelled to file the writ petition SWP No. 01/2014 making the following prayers:

“(a) Issue a writ of certiorari by quashing impugned Select List issued by the respondents during the pendency of the earlier writ petition being SWP No. 835/2013 which is violation to the directions of the Hon’ble Court.

With the consequential prayer to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners by allowing them to compete in the selection process being meritorious and experienced candidates amongst the impugned select list.

(b) Call for the record of selection process from the respondents for just disposal the case.

(c) Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to disengage the services of the petitioners in view of the approaching the Hon’ble Court.”

9. In view of the challenge laid in the subsequent writ petition SWP No. 835/2013 came to be dismissed on 29th November, 2016 as having been rendered infructuous.

10. So far as the stand of the official respondents to the challenges laid by the