JUDGMENT 1. - Common question of law has been raised in all these six writ petitions and even the facts are by and large similar. Therefore I deem it (words missing). 2. All the petitioners were candidates for recruitment to the post of L.D.C. All of them had applied for selection by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short 'the RPSC') in pursuance of the advertisement issued by it on 23.7.86. All the petitioners appeared in the Combined Competitive Examination 1986, actually held in the year 1988, for the purpose of selection for appointment as L.D.C. The result of the test was declared by the RPSC on 17.4.89 and the RPSC forwarded its recommendation to the Government in July 1989 for the purpose of appointments. None of the petitioners figured amongst selected candidates. They have in fact been treated as failed in the test. 3. As per the mark sheets produced along with the writ petitions it is borne out that petitioner Naveen Chandra Ranga (writ No. 1167/91) has secured 45 marks in compulsory paper, 12 marks in speed test and 37 marks in efficiency test of Hindi Type Writing. Petitioner Rajbuddin (writ No. 2769/91) has secured 41 marks in compulsory paper, 27 marks in speed test and 12 marks in efficiency test in Hindi Type writing. Petitioner Chhagan Lal Saini (writ No. 2864/91) has secured 47 marks in compuslory paper, 17 marks in speed test and 29 in efficiency test in Hindi Type Writing. Petitioner Lal Chand Dagdi (Writ No. 7012/91) has secured 47 marks in compulsory paper, 14 marks in speed test and 27 marks in efficiency test. Another petitioner in the same writ petition, namely Rakesh Chandra Sharma has secured 41 marks in compulsory paper 17 marks in speed test and 20 marks in efficiency test in Hindi Type Writing. Petitioner Ram Kumar Dhaka (Writ No. 327/92) has secured 42 marks in compulsory paper, 9 marks in speed test and 29 marks in efficiency test in Hindi Type Writing. Petitioner Vinod Kumar Modi (writ No. 619/92) has secured 42 marks in compulsory paper, 10 marks in speed test and 29 marks in efficiency test in Hindi Type Writing. Thus, all the petitioners have secured 94(47%), 80(40%), 92(46%), 85(42.5%), 78(39%), 80(40%) and 81(40.5%) marks respectively at the Examination of 1986. 4. Petitioner Vinod Kumar Modi (writ No. 619/92) has secured 42 marks in compulsory paper, 10 marks in speed test and 29 marks in efficiency test in Hindi Type Writing. Thus, all the petitioners have secured 94(47%), 80(40%), 92(46%), 85(42.5%), 78(39%), 80(40%) and 81(40.5%) marks respectively at the Examination of 1986. 4. Case set out by the petitioners is that the RPSC has unlawfully incorporated the requirement of securing minimum 18 marks in Hindi and Efficiency Type Writing even though no such requirement can be traced in the provisions of the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 (for short 'the 1957 Rules'). The petitioners have asserted that as per Rule 24(3) of the 1957 Rules, the only limitation which can be read for the Commission to make recommendation of a selected candidate is that such candidate must have secured minimum 35% marks in each of the compulsory and optional papers. The RPSC has thus acted in disregard of the requirements of the Rules. The prescribing of 40% marks in the compulsory papers and 36% marks in optional papers has resulted in serious prejudice to the petitioners because by this prescription the petitioners have been declared as failed. The petitioners have stated that after receipt of the marksheets by them, they contacted the authorities of the RPSC for redressal of their grievance. However, they have not been given relief by the respondent Commission. Reference has then been made to the various decisions of this Court in respect of Combined Competitive Examination of 1986. They have asserted that as per the decision of a learned Single Judge dated 24.11.90, all candidates securing 37.5% marks are entitled to be considered for appointment. The petitioners have become aware of their rights after having come to know about the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 24.11.90. Each of the petitioners has prayed that the conditions incorporated in the syllabus (Exhibit-2) be declared an unlawful being contrary to Rule 24(3) of the 1957 Rules. The Commission be directed to declare each of the petitioners to have qualified at the Combined Competitive Examination of 1986 and the Respondent State Government be directed to appoint each of the petitioners as I.D.C. in terms of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 24.11.90. 5. The Commission be directed to declare each of the petitioners to have qualified at the Combined Competitive Examination of 1986 and the Respondent State Government be directed to appoint each of the petitioners as I.D.C. in terms of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 24.11.90. 5. In reply to the writ petition the respondent Commission has stated that each of the petitioners has appeared in the examination on the basis of the syllabus which was notified by the Commission. Each of the petitioner has failed to secure the minimum pass marks in the Hindi Typing Test (either in the speed test or in the efficiency test). The Commission has stated that the petitioners have deliberately concealed important facts and have not referred to all the relevant provisions of the Rules. By making reference to Rule 20 of the 1957 Rules it has been asserted that this Rule refers to Schedule I appended to 1957 Rules which prescribes the papers (compulsory and optional) in which the candidates are required to appear. The Schedule also contains provisions for minimum pass marks. Thus, the Rule making authority has itself prescribed the requirement of minimum pass marks in the compulsory paper. According to the respondents by not referring to the provisions of Rule 20 of the 1957 Rules the petitioners have themselves led the Court in believing that the Commission has on its own laid down the requirement of minimum pass marks in the speed test and the efficiency test by some administrative order or decision. According to the respondent Commission the writ petitions are highly belated and no relief can be given to the petitioners in such writ petitions. 6. The main argument, which Shri Samdaria, learned counsel for the petitioners, has forcefully advanced before the Court is that prescription of minimum pass marks in the speed test and efficiency test separately is contrary to the provisions of Rule 24(3) of the 1957 Rules. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission was required to hold tests in accordance with the provisions of 1957 Rules and it was not open to the Commission to have laid down this requirement of minimum pass marks. The Commission has thus acted contrary to the provisions of the Rules and has exceeded its jurisdiction. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission was required to hold tests in accordance with the provisions of 1957 Rules and it was not open to the Commission to have laid down this requirement of minimum pass marks. The Commission has thus acted contrary to the provisions of the Rules and has exceeded its jurisdiction. The argument of Shri Samdaria is that every candidate has a right to have his name recommended for appointment if he secures 35% marks in compulsory and the optional papers. Shri Samdaria then argued that by acting in contravention of the Rules the Commission has arbitrarily excluded the candidature of the petitioners from consideration for appointment on the post of L.D.Cs. The petitioners have been subjected to discrimination in as much as persons with lower merit have been recommended. Shri Ashok Parihar Addl. Govt. Advocate, has submitted that the Commission has acted in total conformity with the provisions of 1957 Rules. Shri Parihar submitted that the syllabus which has been published by the respondent Commission, is in accordance with Part II of Schedule 1. The Commission was under a statutory obligation to specify the minimum pass marks in accordance with the Rules. The Commission has not laid down any additional condition which a candidate is required to fulfill before his name can be recommended for the purpose of appointment. Shri Parihar submitted that no administrative order has been passed or decision has been taken by the Commission which runs contrary to the provisions of the Rules. Therefore, this Court must not interfere with the declaration of result of the petitioners. Shri Parihar then argued that the writ petitions have been filed after long lapse of time and the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 24.11.90 has been referred to only in order to mislead the Court because that decision has no relevance to the case of the petitioners who have failed to clear the Examination. Shri Parihar submitted that the result of the Examination was declared and even appointments have been made more than one to two years of the filing of the writ petitions and there can be no justification for overlooking this long lapse of time. Shri Parihar also argued that the petitioners have appeared in the Examination fully knowing in advance that they were required to secure minimum pass marks in the speed test and the efficiency test. Shri Parihar also argued that the petitioners have appeared in the Examination fully knowing in advance that they were required to secure minimum pass marks in the speed test and the efficiency test. They never protested against the laying down of the requirement of minimum pass marks in the speed test and efficiency test. After having failed to secure the minimum marks, they cannot now be heard to say that the Commission has acted arbitrarily. Shri Parihar then stated that a number of candidates who are much more meritorious than the petitioners are still in the select list and if the Court gives a direction to consider the cases of the petitioners, serious complications would arise. 7. Before I deal with the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on merits, I may refer to the decisions of this Court in different cases relating to the Combined Competitive Examination, 1986. In a batch of 58 writ petitions decided on 1.8.90 in Rajendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan and another, 1990(1) RLR 45 , a learned Single Judge of this Court interpreted Rules 19 and 21 of 1957 Rules and declared that the RPSC should have asked the candidates to give choice of two districts or departments for the purpose of appointment and failure of the Commission to do so has resulted in in Justice to the petitioners. A direction was given by the learned Single Judge for the consideration of the candidature of the petitioners against the remaining 140 posts, On a special appeal preferred by the RPSC a Division Bench of this Court in Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer v. Om Dutt Sharma and another, 1990(1)RLR 182 , declared that not only the 58 petitioners but other persons who had not approached the Court were also entitled to be considered for appointment on the basis of their merit in accordance with the directions given bay the learned Single Judge. In Sunita Gupta v. State of Rajasthan and RPSC, 1990(1) RLR 445 , another learned Single Judge of this Court declared that since the RPSC had given appointment to the candidates securing 37.5% marks, all those who have secured 375% or more marks are entitled to be considered for appointment and the Government was given a direction to appoint all those candidates who have secured 37.5% or more marks. Against this decision of the learned Single Judge a special appeal is pending consideration. By its order dated 10.4.91 passed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal, a direction has been given to the State Government to appoint selected candidates on the basis of merit by giving them option of the second district in accordance with their merit. A Division Bench of this Court has by a very recent decision given on 7.5.92 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7072/91 Om Prakash Sharma v. The State of Rajasthan and another , decided along with other 800 writ petitions, declared second proviso to Rule 19 and 24(1) of the 1957 Rules as unconstitutional, and it has given a direction to the respondents to fill the remaining vacancies out of 906 vacancies by preparing a statewise merit list.From the above noted judgments it is clear that as on date the respondents are now required to fill in those vacancies out of 906 vacancies which have remained unfilled and in doing so the merit of the candidates is to be prepared on the whole State basis. Shri Parihar has placed before me a statement showing the percentage of marks secured by the candidates, who gave their options for the second district in pursuance of the directions dated 10.4.91 passed in State and another v. Sunita Gupta, D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 107/91 . This statement shows that the minimum percentage marks secured by the candidates came out to be 55%. 8. For the purpose of deciding the controversy involved in the present case, it would be appropriate to deal with Rules 20 and 24(3) of the 1957 Rules. These Rules are: 20. Authority for conducting the examination and Syllabus-The examinations shall be conducted by the Commission in accordance with rule 19 of these rules. The syllabus of the examination shall be as specified in Schedule I appended to these rules. These Rules are: 20. Authority for conducting the examination and Syllabus-The examinations shall be conducted by the Commission in accordance with rule 19 of these rules. The syllabus of the examination shall be as specified in Schedule I appended to these rules. 24(3) The Commission may award grace marks upto one in each of the papers and up to three in aggregate to enable a candidate to qualify at the examination who might otherwise have not qualified in the said examination: Provided that the Commission shall not recommend any candidate who has failed to obtain a minimum of 35% marks in each of the compulsory and optional papers in the Lower Division Clerks Examination." Rule 20 makes a reference to Schedule I appended to these rules. Schedule I contains syllabus and rules for combined competitive examination. Part I of it deals with the post of L.D.C. and Part Ii contains the syllabus and procedure for competitive examination for the post of L.D.C. II is laid down in Schedule I Part II that competitive examination shall include the candidates specified in that Part and, each paper shall carry the marks shown against it. The compulsory paper of General Hindi carries 50 marks. Paper of Typewriting in Hindi and English (which is additional) carries 50 marks each for speed test and efficiency test. It has also laid down that the standard of test will he that of secondary examination of the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan. It has then been provided that the paper of Typewriting in Hindi will consist of speed test and efficiency test. The minimum speed that is expected as 20 w.p.m. and minimum pass marks in each test shall be 18 marks. Similarly in the paper of Typewriting the minimum speed expected is 25 w.p.m. The minimum pass marks in each test shall be 18 marks. A perusal of the Rules together with Schedule I (Part II) clearly shows that the Rule making authority has itself laid down the syllabus and rules for examination. Therefore, the premise on which Shri Samdaria has put forward his argument about the illegality of the action of the RPSC is wholly unfounded. A perusal of the Rules together with Schedule I (Part II) clearly shows that the Rule making authority has itself laid down the syllabus and rules for examination. Therefore, the premise on which Shri Samdaria has put forward his argument about the illegality of the action of the RPSC is wholly unfounded. In the face of the fact that the syllabus i, which in turn is a part and parcel of Rule 20 of the 1957 Rules, it is not possible to accept the submission of Shri Samdaria that the RPSC has on its own and by administrative decision/order incorporated the requirement of minimum pass marks of 18 in the speed test and efficiency test of Hindi Typewriting paper, The syllabus printed and published by the RPSC is in accordance with the provisions contained in Schedule. The Commission has simply reproduced the provisions contained in Part II of Schedule I of the 1957 Rules. Therefore, in my opinion the Commission has not committed any illegality or arbitrariness and it has not acted in excess of its authority in issuing the syllabus which contains a stipulation of requirement of pass marks in the speed test and efficiency test in Hindi Typewriting paper. In view of this clear position of the Rules, there is absolutely no merit in the proposition of law sought to be advanced by Shri Samdaria that the action of the RPSC in issuing the syllabus should be declared as ultra vires to the provisions of the 1957 Rules and the petitioners could not have been declared as unsuccessful on account of their having failed to secure minimum pass marks of 18 in the speed or efficiency test in Hindi Typewriting paper. The RPSC was legally justified in declaring the petitioners as failed because they have failed to secure the minimum pass marks. In this view of the matter, the decisions in State of Maharashtra v. Jagannath Achyut Karandikar, AIR 1989 SC 1133 , Ladulal Jain v. R.P.S.C., Ajmer and ors., 1989(1) RLR 41 , Sunita Gupta v. State of Rajasthan & RPSC, 1990(1) RLR 445 , Vizianagaram and another v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, JT 1990 (2) SC 169 , M/s Prem Chand Somchand Shah & anr. v. Union of India & anr., JT 1991(1)SC 340 . v. Union of India & anr., JT 1991(1)SC 340 . State of Sikkim v. Dorjee Tshering Bhutia & ors., JT 1991 (3) SC 456 , are of little relevance and are of little help to the cases of the petitioners. Preposition of law that no administrative order can be issued so as to result in contravention of the statutory provisions, hardly require any elaboration but as already observed here in above, in the present case the requirement of passing of 18 marks in the speed and efficiency test separately has been laid down in the Rules of 1957 itself and such a requirement is not based on any administrative decision of the Commission. 9. Shri Samdaria then argued that there is inconsistency between the proviso to Rule 24(3) and the provisions contained in Schedule I of the 1957 Rules, Shri Parihar has on the other hand submitted that since the petitioner has not challenged the validity of the provisions contained in Part II of the Schedule I, this Court will not examine the legality or reasonableness of the provisions contained in Part II of Schedule I nor will it declare the action of the Commission in declaring the petitioners as failed on account of the so called inconsistency between Part II of Schedule I and proviso to Rule 24(3). Shri Parihar then argued that proviso to Rule 24(3) has to be read harmoniously with Rule 20 of the 1957 Rules. If so read, there is no inconsistency or contradiction in the two provisions, argued Shri Parihar. In my opinion the question as to whether the provision contained in Part II of Schedule I is unreasonable or arbitrary or inconsistent with proviso to Rule 24(3), need not be decided in this case. Firstly there is no direct challenge to the vires of Part II of Schedule I which forms part of Rule 20 of the 1957 Rules. In fact the entire basis of all the petitions is that the syllabus has been issued by the Commission in contravention of the Rules of 1957. No plea regarding inconsistency between the two provisions has been raised in the writ petitions. Secondly, I find although there appears to be some inconsistency in the two provisions of the 1957 Rules, a harmonious reading of two provisions clarifies the whole situation. No plea regarding inconsistency between the two provisions has been raised in the writ petitions. Secondly, I find although there appears to be some inconsistency in the two provisions of the 1957 Rules, a harmonious reading of two provisions clarifies the whole situation. Part II of Schedule I prescribes the requirement of minimum marks in each of the two tests in Hindi Type Writing paper and proviso to Rule 24(3) provides that a candidate must secure at least 35% marks in either of the papers (optional and compulsory). Thus in either cases if a candidate fails to obtain the marks as specified in Part II of Schedule I as also in proviso to Rule 24(3), his name cannot be recommended for the purpose of appointment as L.D.C. Of course it can be said that once a person secures 18 marks in the two tests of Hindi Typing or English Typing Test, he will automatically secure 36% marks and, therefore, in all such cases, proviso to Rule 24(3) will be redundant. That may be so but merely because there is some overlapping in the provisions contained in Part II of Schedule I and proviso to Rule 24(3) of the 1957 Rules, it cannot be said that Rule 20, Schedule I or any of its Part is arbitrary, unreasonable or unconstitutional. It is for the Rule Making Authority to examine the existence of these overlapping provisions and take necessary steps for removing this apparent incongruity. 10. Even otherwise I am of the considered opinion that neither of the petitioners deserve to be given any relief by this Court. The Writ Petition No. 1167/91 has been filed on 11.2.91. The other four Writ Petitions have been filed in the months of April, May and December 1991, and the last one has been filed in the month of January 1992. The result of the examination held by the Commission in 1988 was declared in 1989 and appointments had also been given in 1989-90. The petitioners remained silent for over one year after declaration of the result and they waited for almost one year after the appointment orders were issued. No explanation, worth the name, has been given for this delay in filing of the writ petitions. The shelter of litigation pending in this Court has been taken by the petitioner. The petitioners remained silent for over one year after declaration of the result and they waited for almost one year after the appointment orders were issued. No explanation, worth the name, has been given for this delay in filing of the writ petitions. The shelter of litigation pending in this Court has been taken by the petitioner. But in my considered opinion they are not entitled to rely on the writ petitions pending before this Court for explaining the unreasonable delay in filing of the writ petitions. The petitioners in fact never felt aggrieved against the result declared by the Commission. The theory of pendency of litigation has been concocted only in order to overcome the hurdle of delay, which in my opinion has remained unexplained satisfactorily. In the matter of recruitment a person must approach the Court at the earliest because rights of third parties are always likely to be affected by the delay in filing of the writ petition and it is wholly inequitable (sic) for the respondents to unsettle the settled position of others.That apart, in the present case none of the petitioners has secured even 50% marks and the petitioners have not shown as to whether any candidate who has secured less than 50% marks has been appointed in pursuance of the directions of the Court dated 10.4.91. The Commission has produced the statement showing the minimum percentage of the candidate whose name was included in the list prepared by the Commission in pursuance of the direction of the Court dated 10.4.91 That percentage is 55%. None of the petitioners, therefore, are eligible for being appointed as L.D.C. 11. There is one additional reason why relief should not be given to the petitioners. Each of the petitioners appeared in the test with full knowledge about the contents of the syllabus issued by the Commission. Each one of them knew that he has to pass the speed test and efficiency test by securing a minimum of 18 marks out of a total of 50. Each one of the petitioners appeared in the test fully conscious with the consequence of his failure to secure the minimum of 18 marks in the speed and efficiency test. If the petitioners have secured 18 marks in the speed test and efficiency test, every thing would have been all right. Each one of the petitioners appeared in the test fully conscious with the consequence of his failure to secure the minimum of 18 marks in the speed and efficiency test. If the petitioners have secured 18 marks in the speed test and efficiency test, every thing would have been all right. There would be no occasion for him to challenge the so called arbitrariness/ unreasonableness in the Rules or so called illegality in declaring the result of petitioners. Now when the petitioners have failed to secure the required marks, they want to castigate the Rules as well as the action of the Commission. The petitioners took a chance to clear the test on the basis of the Rules which they now want from this Court to be declared as unreasonable. From the conduct of the petitioners, it must be inferred that they have waived their right, if any, to challenge the action of the Commission in issuing the syllabus or any arbitrainess in the requirement of securing of 18 marks in speed test as well as efficiency test. 12. In the result, all these writ petitions fail and they are dismissed. Each of the petitioners shall pay cost of Rs. 500/- to the Respondent Commission.Petition dismissed. *******