JUDGMENT : 

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.

1. As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions, with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from CWP No.17635 of 2017.

2. The petitioners through instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of result dated 23.06.2017 (Annexure P-15) whereby they have not been selected despite orders passed by Division Bench of this Court in different appeals.

3. The petitioners, pursuant to Advertisement No.8 of 2015 dated 19.07.2015, applied for the post of Constable. As per advertisement, selection process comprised four stages i.e. Physical Screening Test, Knowledge Test, Physical Measurement Test and Interview-cum-Personality Test. Each step carried marks and was followed by next step. The petitioners appeared in the Physical Screening Test from 15.06.2016 to 23.07.2016. The respondent declared result of Physical Screening Test wherein name of petitioners did not figure. They preferred various writ petitions before this Court alleging that they have actually qualified Physical Screening Test, however, have wrongly been declared unsuccessful. Learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 27.08.2016 dismissed all the writ petitions. The petitioners preferred various Intra Court Appeals. The matter finally came up for consideration before Division Bench of this Court on 08.05.2017 which disposed of all the appeals with following observations:

“(2) Notice of motion was issued and learned counsel for parties heard. During the course of hearing learned Advocate General, Haryana states that the authorities have re- considered the whole matter as a ‘special case’ and it has been decided to treat the appellants to have qualified the physical test. Consequently, it has been decided to hold written examination for them on 08.06.2017 and subject to their performance/merit position in the written test, they shall be considered for the advertised posts.

(3) In this view of the matter, the order(s) passed by learned Single Judge is/are set aside and the appeal(s) are disposed of as having become infructuous.

(4) It is clarified that the above-stated the concession is limited only in respect of the candidates who have approached this Court till date.”

4. Pursuant to aforesaid order, the respondent conducted Knowledge Test of petitioners on 08.06.2017. The respondent issued notice dated 26.05.2017 stipulating that standard of test would be 10+2 examination of Board of School Education, Haryana. It would comprise questions on General Studies, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Reasoning, Current Affairs, Numerical Ability, General Science, Aptitude, relevant field, Trade etc. The petitioners appeared in the Knowledge Test. The respondent vide notice dated 16.06.2017 called all the candidates who were subjected to Knowledge Test held on 08.06.2017 for Physical Measurement Test on 19.06.2017 and Interview-cum-Personality Test on 20.06.2017. The petitioners participated in the Physical Measurement Test as well as Interview-cum-Personality Test. The respondent finally declared result of all the candidates. Name of petitioners did not figure in the final result.

5. Learned Senior counsel representing the petitioners submits that respondent intentionally set questions of graduation level in the Knowledge Test whereas stipulated standard was of 10+2. Intention of respondent was to award minimum marks to the petitioners which is evident from the fact that they were granted qualifying marks in Physical Screening Test and minimum marks in Interview-cum-Personality Test. The respondent by notice dated 16.06.2017 fixed 19.06.2017 as date of Physical Measurement Test and 20.06.2017 as date of Interview-cum-Personality Test. This showed hurriedness of the respondent to weed out petitioners. All the candidates who were before the Appellate Court were ultimately declared unsuccessful whereas 8 candida