LAWS(RAJ)-2015-9-118

SHAKTI DAN CHARAN AND ORS. Vs. RAJ. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. (RIICO) AND ORS.

Decided On September 02, 2015
Shakti Dan Charan And Ors. Appellant
V/S
Raj. State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd. (Riico) And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In I.A.No.34704/2015:

(2.) The petitioners, in the instant writ applications, are aggrieved of the action of the repondents, for they were not permitted to participate in the Phase-II of the recruitment process, for which an examination of Phase-I, was conducted on 3rd May, 2014, and Phase-II, was scheduled to be held on 28th July, 2014, and therefore, instituted the present petitions praying for the following relief(s):

(3.) The skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy are that the petitioners in response to an advertisement issued by the Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "RIICO", for short), submitted their applications for consideration of their candidatures for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant. It is pleaded case of the petitioners that they successfully participated in the Phase-I of the examination held on 3rd May, 2014, for the post of Junior Assistant (Post No.8) in the advertisement. The exmaination which consisted of two papers i.e. (i) General Knowledge, Everyday Science and Mathematics and (ii) General Hindi and English. Result of the examination was declared on 10th June, 2014. Petitioner-Shakti Dan Charan secured 57.14% in Section A, 45.71% in Section B and 35% in Section D, and thus, the total percentage was 46.5%. In the second part, he secured 74% in Section A and in Section B 42%, and thus, the total percentage was 58%. The petitioner-Suman Lata Dhakar secured 50% in Section A, 54.29% in Section B and 38.33% in Section D, and thus, the total percentage was 48%. In the second part, she secured 79% in Section A and 34% in Section B, and thus, the total percentage was 56.5%. However, the petitioners were precluded from participation in the second phase for the reason that they could not qualify the Phase-I by securing minimum 40% in each Section, as contemplated under Clause 3 of the Advertisement.