A.K. MATHUR, J.—All these writ petitions involve a common question of law, therefore, they are disposed of by a common order. 2. For the convenient disposal of these writ petitions the facts mentioned in the case of Ashok Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (1) are taken into consideration. 3. Brief facts which are relevant for the consideration are that the Chief Engineer Irrigation, State of Rajasthan invited applications for filling 640 posts of Sub-Engineer (Diploma-holders), vide advertisement dated 25th of July, 1987. Petitioner who is a diploma holder and secured 63.8% marks and also in the mean time obtained B.E. in 1988 with 68.3 marks applied for the post in a pro-forma. It is alleged that the process of interview started in January 1988 and petitioner came to know that the person with a much less marks in diploma or degree have been called for interview, but he was not called for interview. Since petitioner was not invited for interview, therefore, he made a representation to the Chief Engineer on 24th January 1989 and then again on 17th of April 1989. When he did not receive any favourable response then he had rushed upto this Court for filing the present writ petition. 4. It is alleged that petitioner came to know that certain criteria have been laid down for short listing the application of the candidates who have applied in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement and in that he could not come, therefore, his application was rejected. Petitioner in this writ petition has challenged that criteria on verious grounds. 5. The writ petition was admitted and notice was given and in response thereof a detailed reply had been filed by the respondents. Respondents had submitted in its return that in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement, the department received 7570 applications. In order to short list this huge number of applications, a criterion was evolved and according to that criterion all the applications were scrutinised. The petitioner could not come in the merit, therefore, he was not called for interview. It is further submitted that the criterion laid down by the respondents was a rational criterion with a view to short list the applications and call those persons to the extent of five times the number of vacancies. But the petitioner could not come in that five times number. As such he was not called for interview. 6. Mr. It is further submitted that the criterion laid down by the respondents was a rational criterion with a view to short list the applications and call those persons to the extent of five times the number of vacancies. But the petitioner could not come in that five times number. As such he was not called for interview. 6. Mr. Mridul, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the criterion which has been laid down was not published, therefore, it is not open for the respondents to rely upon such criterion. Learned counsel submitted that the criterion is a wholly arbitrary, vague and contrary to Rules. In order to examine these allegations of Mr. Mridul it is necessary to know what exact criterion was laid down by the Government. In the earlier return filed by the respondents they did not give the criterion but subsequently, during the course of arguments Mr. Joshi learned Additional Advocate General placed before me the criterion and thereafter the same was also placed on record by filing two additional affidavits of Mr. R.C. Agrawal Executive Engineer. The criterion reads as under:- "i) Qualifications : a) Secondary/Hr. Secondary 05 marks b) Diploma in respective Engineering Branch 25 marks Sub-Total 30 marks ii) Experiences : 10 marks have been assigned for the experience gained by the candidates in respective Engineering branch. 02 marks are to be awarded per year for a maximum period of five years and experience is to be counted on equivalent post (Supervisor/Ju. Engineer/ Work-charge/Apprentice). 10 marks "2. EXPERIENCE: Sub-total 10 marks 02 marks are to be awarded per year for a maximum period of 05 years, after passing qualifying examination in respective engineering branch. Experience is to be counted on equivalent post i.e. Supervisor/Junior Engineer etc. in : 10 i) Govt. Semi - Govt./Autonomous Organisation/Deptt. serving in capacity of:- Adhoc/Offig./temporary ...... weightage 100% Work-charge/apprentice ..... weigritage 50% Notes :-(a) Experience is to be counted, in case application has been received through proper channel or appropriate certified documents are enclosed / available with the application. (b) Employment on muster-rool (s)/daily wages is not to be reckoned as experience. ii) Private Organisation : Weightage to be reckoned when appropriate 25% certified documents are enclosed/available with the application) Sub-total 10" 7. Mr. Mridul, learned counsel submitted that since the criterion has not been published, therefore, the respondents cannot rely on this criterion and it should be quashed. (b) Employment on muster-rool (s)/daily wages is not to be reckoned as experience. ii) Private Organisation : Weightage to be reckoned when appropriate 25% certified documents are enclosed/available with the application) Sub-total 10" 7. Mr. Mridul, learned counsel submitted that since the criterion has not been published, therefore, the respondents cannot rely on this criterion and it should be quashed. 8. Mr. Mridul has invited my attention to Guruswamy vs. State of Mysore (2), A.S. Sangwan vs. Union of India (3), Ugam Raj Bhandari vs. The State of Rajasthan (4) and Talwinder Singh Behal vs. Punjab State Electricity Board (5). 9. As against this, Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is true that it was not published but merely by non-publication of the criterion the whole of the criterion cannot be quashed. According to the learned counsel, it is the Government who has to devise certain criterion to short listing of the larger number of the applications, more than 7000 and for that some rational principle has to be evolved. Mr. Joshi submitted that according to Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Engineering Subordinate Service (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1967) the application has to be scrutinised by the appointing authority in the present case. Therefore, for that purpose, some rational method has to be evolved for scrutinising the application and, therefore, a criterion was laid down for short listing the application. Rule 19 of the Rules of 1967 reads as under :- "19. Scrutiny of Applications:- The Commission or the Appointing Authority, as the case may be, shall scrutinise the applications received by them/it require as many candidates qualified for appointment under these rules, as seem to them/it desirable to appear before them/it for interview. Provided that the decision of the Commission or the Appointing Authority, as the case may be, regarding the eligibility or otherwise of a candidate, shall be final." In pursuance of the aforesaid Rules, the Appointing Authority laid down the criteria for scrutinising the applications. Looking to the huge number of the applications, the respondent evolved the certain criterion and they uniformally applied the criterion for short listing the applications. 10. I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel, and perused the record. I think that non-publication of the criterion cannot result in quashing of the whole of the criterion. Looking to the huge number of the applications, the respondent evolved the certain criterion and they uniformally applied the criterion for short listing the applications. 10. I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel, and perused the record. I think that non-publication of the criterion cannot result in quashing of the whole of the criterion. Rule 19 confers power on the appointing authority that they can scrutinise the applications for examining the eligibility or otherwise of the candidate. For that purpose the aforesaid criterion was laid down. It is no bodys case that aforesaid criterion was not honestly applied for short listing the applications. The contention of Mr. Mridul is that if they want to use this criterion, for short listing, then they should have mentioned that in the advertisement. In the advertisement for inviting the applications, it is not necessary to mention criterion for short listing the applications. The advertisement has to be in terms of the Rules of 1967. It is an internal matter of the respondents to scrutinise the applications and evolve some rational methods, so that the interviews or selections could be effectively held in terms of the aforesaid Rules. Therefore, in this view of the matter the criterion, as reproduced above was laid down by the Government for short listing the applications. Such criterion for short listing does not violate Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution. 11. Guruswami vs. State of Mysore (supra) was a case for the purpose of grant of excise licence and for that purpose it was laid down that the prospective licencee should know the criterion on which the licence would be granted by way of auction. Here it is not a case of grant of a licence, but it is only a case of short listing of applications looking to the large number of them which have been received in pursuance of the advertisement. In A.S. Sangwan vs. Union of India (supra) the question was regarding the change of the new policy of the Government for employees of defence force. It was Said down that once a policy is formulated then it should be followed, it was further observed that it is open for the Government to change the same. But it was laid down that whenever policy is changed, it should be fairly made known to concerned persons. It was Said down that once a policy is formulated then it should be followed, it was further observed that it is open for the Government to change the same. But it was laid down that whenever policy is changed, it should be fairly made known to concerned persons. It is true that whenever the Rules are made for the recruitment in the service, then it should be published, so that incumbent may know where they stand. But here it was a case of scrutiny of applications for which a power has been conferred on the appointing authority under the Rules, that can scrutinise the application and they can decide that who should be called for interview and who should not be called for interview. Therefore, it is not a case by which any change in the Rules have been made. It was only a pure executive function of short listing on the basis of rational criterion, and if that has not been made public then no exception could be taken to this act of the State. Learned counsel has also invited my attention to Ugamraj Bhandari V. State, of Rajasthan, (supra). In this case a District Judge was dismissed from service in pursuance of a regular inquiry held against him and in that context, it was observed that the . 1967 resolution of High Court seeks to amend the C. C. A. Rules applicable to the Judicial Officers and lays down the fresh set of Rules to regulate the procedure for taking the disciplinary action against the Judicial Officers. In that context, it was observed that 1967 Rules were legislative in character and cannot be regarded as purely administrative order conferring the power of High Court in favour of Chief Justice and the Administrative Judge. Therefore, this case is wholly distinguishable on facts as the High Court resolution was sought to be substituted for the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1958 which was framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. As such the publication was found by the court to be necessary. But that is not the case here. Here no academic qualification or other qualification as required under the Rules were changed,therefore, the publication of the exeutive criterion laid down by the respondent for short listing the applications does not require any publication. As such the publication was found by the court to be necessary. But that is not the case here. Here no academic qualification or other qualification as required under the Rules were changed,therefore, the publication of the exeutive criterion laid down by the respondent for short listing the applications does not require any publication. Learned counsel has also invited my attention to Talwinder Singh Behal V. Punjab State Electricity Board (Supra). In that case also, the rules for recruitment were sought to be changed. But they were not published. In this case also what is said to be changed was the Rules of recruitment. But here in the present case, no Rules are sought to be changed or amended requiring any publication. Here, in the present case, question was of short listing the large number of applications. Therefore, laying down certain criterion was purely administrative in nature in the purported exercise of the power under the Rules and for that purpose, the State can lay down executive instructions and such administrative instructions does not require to be published. In this view of the matter, this contention of learned counsel cannot be accepted. 12. Now next question, which has been seriously agitated, is the rationality of the criterion, which has been laid down for short listing the large number of application. It is always open for the Government to lay down a rational criterion and apply the same uniformally for all the candidates. But the criterion should be rational and it should have nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Therefore, now I shall examine the various arguments and various facets of the criterion which had been challenged before me. 13. I shall first take up the criterion which has been laid down under the heading of qualification. In this criterion the five marks have been laid down for Secondary and Higher Secondary and 25 marks for diploma in respective Engineering branch. The marks are to be allotted on percentage of marks secured by the candidate in their respective examinations. This shows that total 30 marks have been laid down for the candidates having academic excellence. Marks have to be given to the candidates on the basis of the percentage of marks obtained by the candidates in their respective examinations. Mr. The marks are to be allotted on percentage of marks secured by the candidate in their respective examinations. This shows that total 30 marks have been laid down for the candidates having academic excellence. Marks have to be given to the candidates on the basis of the percentage of marks obtained by the candidates in their respective examinations. Mr. Mridul learned counsel for the petitioner, has specially submitted that so far as 5 marks fixed for Secondary and Higher Secondary Examination, in the present case, is absolutely irrelevant. Learned counsel submitted that the respondents have wrongly equated Secondary with the Higher Secondary. Learned counsel submitted that the obtaining of 5 marks for a candidate in Secondary or Higher Secondary has hardly any relevance for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer. It is the final marks obtained by the candidate in the Diploma that is relevant and the marks obtained in Secondary and Higher Secondary have no relevance whatsoever to the competence for the job as well as for the suitability of the candidates for the post of the Junior Engineer. Learned counsel has also submitted that no such criterion has been laid down in the Rules. Learned counsel also submitted that no marks or any benefit has been mentioned for the candidate for the passing of Higher qualification like the B.E. As against this, Mr. J.P. Joshi, learned. Additional Advocate General, submitted that in order to see the over all academic excellence of the candidate, if 5 marks have been allotted for candidates on the basis of the percentage of the marks obtained by him in the Secondary or Higher Secondary examination then it cannot be said to be irrelevant. 14. I have considered the rival submissions and bestowed my best of the consideration. I am of the opinion that so far as the post of the Junior Engineer is concerned the relevance of the percentage of the marks obtained by the candidate in the Secondary or Higher Secondary has no relevance whatsoever. What has to be judged is the ability of the candidate in the technical subject and the academic excellence acquired by him in this technical branch only. The incumbent is to be appointed on the post of Junior Engineer and for that he undertakes study during the diploma course only. What has to be judged is the ability of the candidate in the technical subject and the academic excellence acquired by him in this technical branch only. The incumbent is to be appointed on the post of Junior Engineer and for that he undertakes study during the diploma course only. Therefore, what is relevant in the present context is the academic attainment of the candidate in the diploma or in the B.E., as the case may be. Therefore, the emphasis should have been laid down for the academic excellence of the candidate having diploma in Engineering, rather than awarding any marks for academic qualifications like Secondary or Higher Secondary. It is also true that Higher Secondary cannot be equated with the qualification of Secondary. But I need not to go into that aspect of the. matter, as I am satisfied that awarding separate marks for Secondary or Higher Secondary examination has no relevance for the recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer. As such the awarding of 5 marks for Secondary or Higher Secondary is not relevant and they have no nexus which is sought to be achieved by awarding the marks. As such the awarding of 5 marks for Secondary or Higher Secondary examination is quashed. 15. Next criterion is regarding the experience. Mr. Mridul, learned counsel, has submitted that for direct recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer, the Rules for recruitment nowhere lay down that any weightage should be given to the experience. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel, submitted that experience is also very valuable in service and if any candidate has gained some experience then due weightage should be given to this experience also. It is true that in the Rules of 1967 for direct recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer the experience has not been made as one of the eligibility conditions. Not only these Rules but also the various other Engineering Service Rules in Rajasthan, namely, the PWD Subordinate Service Rules, the PHED Subordinate Service Rules and Ground Water Board Service Rules do not lay down any weightage to experience or experience as a necessary qualification for direct recruitment in service. All these Rules lay down Diploma in the concerned subject as qualification for direct recruitment. All these Rules lay down Diploma in the concerned subject as qualification for direct recruitment. The experience has not been given any weightage in the Rules It is true that an infructuous circumstance that some candidates are fortunate enough to get job on the post of Junior Engineer or Supervisor or workcharge, as the case may be, on ad hoc or temporary basis. Then such infructuous circumstance cannot be pleaded against an incumbent coming from College to his disadvantage. When the recruitment is by way of open competition then such rider will create inequality. Such inequality cannot be permitted. Therefore, it is proper that when there is a direct recruitment for the post, then the only criterion which is relevant is the academic excellence. By adding 10 marks for the experience will play a great havoc with the new incumbents and will create inequality and this cannot be permitted. 16. Mr. Mridul has also argued that the criterion itself is vague and no regard has been given as to what weightage should be given to the experience and even experience gained in the private institution should also be given some weightage. Learned counsel also submits that even work-charge and apprentices experience has been taken into consideration. Learned counsel submitted that even the experience of autonomous body has been taken into consideration. Such criterion is absolutely vague and arbitrary and it gives an undue latitude to the authorities that they can award 10 marks on the basis of any Certificate obtained from any private institution or semi-Government institution. Be that as it may, the fact remains that when it is an open competition, then why make this rider. All candidates should be judged on their merit and no benefit should be given to an infructuous circumstances that some were lucky to get employment earlier. A candidate may have passed the Diploma or B.E. degree and fortunate to get employment earlier then his colleagues and another colleague fails to get any job for couple of years. This unfortunate plight of the candidate, who could not successfully secure any job should be permanently left behind than the candidates who have passed along with him and may be some times with better brilliant academic record, therefore, when direct recruitment is made then there is no point in giving 10 marks for the past experience. This unfortunate plight of the candidate, who could not successfully secure any job should be permanently left behind than the candidates who have passed along with him and may be some times with better brilliant academic record, therefore, when direct recruitment is made then there is no point in giving 10 marks for the past experience. This will create inequality and this is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the awarding of 10 marks for experience is not a proper criterion for a purpose which is being sought to be achieved. The purpose is to select a best candidate and for that to award 10% marks for infructuous circumstances of getting into job earlier will certainly permit a march to that candidate over another candidate who unfortunately could not secure any job because of paucity of jobs in the country. As such 10 marks for experience for short listing the applications cannot be sustained and I quash the same. 17. Next, challenge has been directed against the allotment of marks for gymnastic, sports and N.C.C The five marks have been allotted for the representation in the games sports at State level or possessing N.C.C, B & C Certificate or equivalent area of extra curricular activities applicable to women candidates only. So far as this criterion is concerned, I think no exception can be taken to the encouragement of sports. Mr. Mridul has submitted that this criterion is too vague and arbitrary. The awarding of 5 marks out of 50 marks for development of sports and other State level activities was with a view to encourage the extra curricular activities in the country. It is not correct to say that criterion is vague or arbitrary. The criterion appears to be just that they only give a weightage to the sports activities or games of State level or a candidate possessing N.C.C B & C certificate. Mr. Udawat and Mr. Mridul submitted that N.C.C B & C certificates is not awarded to the diploma holders Mr. Joshi has opposed the submission and submitted that some of the candidates have filed certificates. I am not going to enter into that aspect of the matter. Mr. Udawat and Mr. Mridul submitted that N.C.C B & C certificates is not awarded to the diploma holders Mr. Joshi has opposed the submission and submitted that some of the candidates have filed certificates. I am not going to enter into that aspect of the matter. If any B & C certificate have been awarded may be in the schooling or in the college then there is no harm in giving weightage to the extra curricular activities of the candidates. So far as giving weightage to the equivalent area of extra curricular activities of the woman candidates is concerned, that too cannot be said to be bad and no exception can be taken for encouraging the woman candidates to such extra curricular activities. As a matter of fact, giving encouragement to the sports and games cannot be said to be an illegal or a wrong criterion for that purpose. 18. No challenge has been made regarding man power registration and being bona fide resident of Rajasthan except Mr. Mridul has submitted that there is no column in the form that where the candidate should mention his man power registration. Mr. Jashi has shown me the advertisement and in which it has been clearly mentioned that the incumbent has to give his registration number in the man power. Therefore, no exception can be taken to this criterion. 19. In the result, I allow all these writ petitions in part and direct the respondents to short list the applications after excluding the allotment of five marks for Secondary or Higher Secondary Examination and exclude 10 marks for experience. The respondents may short list the application excluding the aforesaid criterion and thereafter re-scrutinise all the applications and then proceed for the selection in accordance with law. 20. The respondents may proceed in the light of the observations made above and the candidates who have already been interviewed and come in the merit in the light of the aforesaid judgment may be considered. No order as to costs.