JUDGMENT 1. - Both the writ petitions involve same questions of facts and law and, therefore, are being disposed of together. For the purpose of disposal of both the writ petitions the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5544/95 Dr. Chandra Shekhar Sharma v. State & Anr are being taken into consideration. 2. The petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 5544/95 Dr. Chandra Shekhar Sharma, had applied for the post of Lecturer in Chemistry whereas Smt. Mamta Agrawal in Sanskrit in response to the advertisement in the year 1993. Vide impugned orders dated 22.11.1995 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5544/95. Dr. Chandra Shekhar Sharma v. State and order dated 3.2.1996 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1285/96 Smt. Mamta Agrawal v. State , both the petitioners were informed that even though they were fulfilling the qualifications and were eligible for consideration but they could not be called for interview because of short listing the number of candidates on the ground that the applications received were very large and on the screening done, their merit falls much below. 3. Both the petitioners were allowed to be interviewed with the permission of the court but subject to the decision of the writ petition. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that no criteria was laid down for screening and in any case none of the petitioner had been informed of the method of screening. It is stated that the petitioners are highly qualified holding Ph. D. and also M. Phil. and thus they could not have been deprived of the chance of consideration for selection. It is further argued that certain Lecturers who were holding temporary or adhoc posts have been regularised without there being any screening done in the case of those candidates because of the amendment in the rules as published in the official gazette Annexure-3 on 5.4.1995. It is submitted that the selection of those adhoc candidates were irregular. However, for the reason that none of those adhoc persons who had been regularised had been made parties now no relief can be claimed against them. There is a prayer to the effect that the amendment under the rules made vide Annexure-3 may be declared as ultra vires. It is submitted that the selection of those adhoc candidates were irregular. However, for the reason that none of those adhoc persons who had been regularised had been made parties now no relief can be claimed against them. There is a prayer to the effect that the amendment under the rules made vide Annexure-3 may be declared as ultra vires. The second part of the argument in regard to regularisation of adhoc lecturers cannot be given consideration to for non-joinder of the necessary parties and thus the contention in this respect is to be rejected. 5. However, because of the reason that in the written statement filed by respondent the criteria for preparing a merit for screening had not been mentioned, the respondent RPSC was directed to produce the merit list of the candidates who were called for interview and the criteria for short listing the candidates. The criteria which has been produced for perusal of the court is as under : Extract of Full Commission's meeting held on 1.3.1994 in the Committee Room of the Commission. Item No. 1 : To consider the criteria to be fixed for shortlisting the candidates for the post of Lecturer, College Education. The matter was considered and after detailed deliberations, it was decided that in the case of recruitment of the posts of Lecturers in College Education, the following criteria may be followed for short listing the eligible candidates. This will be in supersession of the decision taken in the Full Commission's meeting held on 2.7.1993: 1(a) Let the percentage of marks achieved by the candidates in the (a) Post Graduate be 'A' (b) First Degree Examination be 'B' (c) Higher Secondary/Sr. Hr. Secondary 'C' (d) High School/Secondary Examination be 'D' Then, the Grade Equivalent (GI) of marks will be A/1 = B/2.5 + C/7.5 + D/7.5 Example-The percentage of marks obtained at M.A. 64.5, B.A. 69%, Hr. Section 80%, High School 85%, then the grade Equivalent would be- 61.5/1 + 68/2.5 + 80/7.5 + 85/7.5 = 64.50 + 27.60 + 10.67 + 11.33 = 114.10 2. To the marks calculated vide 1, shall be further added to the appropriate marks based on the following criteria (a) If the candidate has achieved any Research Degree and/or has cleared the following examinations beyond Post Graduation in the relevant subject then (1) NET + SLET with M. Phil and Ph. To the marks calculated vide 1, shall be further added to the appropriate marks based on the following criteria (a) If the candidate has achieved any Research Degree and/or has cleared the following examinations beyond Post Graduation in the relevant subject then (1) NET + SLET with M. Phil and Ph. D. (2) NET + SLET with M. Phil or Ph. D. (3) NET / SLET with M. Phil and Ph. D. (4) NET / SLET with Ph. D/M. Phil. (5) NET + SLET (6) NET / S LET (7) M. Phil with Ph. D. (8) Ph. D/M. Phil. (b) Teaching Experience in any recognised University or any college under the Directorate or College Education, Rajasthan will carry additional marks as follows : (a) One Session 2 (b) Two Sessions 3 (c) Three Sessions 4 (d) Four Sessions & above 5 Whereas a Session means atleast 8 months in the Academic Year. 3. The grand total of marks computed under paras 1 to 2 shall be arranged in order of merit to indicate the cut off marks for short listing so that the number of candidates called for interview is 3 times the number of posts for all types of categories. 4. The Commission also felt that the NET & SLET are the basic eligibility qualifications, while Ph. D. and M. Phil are of a transitory nature of relaxation. Therefore, if in any subject large number of SLET/NET candidates are not covered then this ratio of 1 : 3 may be relaxed upto 1 : 3.5 in order to cover some more candidates who have qualified NET/SLET. This additionality would be only for NET/SLET qualified candidates. 6. No fault can be found in the criteria of short listing. The candidates with Post Graduation qualification are to be awarded the marks of percentage as they had received in full. Marks obtained in Bachelors Degree 1 is to be divided by 2.5 and that of Higher Secondary and Secondary are to be divided by 7.5 each and then additions are to be made in regard to the position of M. Phil or P Hd. degree etc. This criteria is applicable to all the candidates. 7. Short listing list was produced. The name of Smt. Mamta Agrawal stands at Sr. degree etc. This criteria is applicable to all the candidates. 7. Short listing list was produced. The name of Smt. Mamta Agrawal stands at Sr. No. 379 and she has obtained 101.2 marks i.e. total weightage, whereas the persons called after short-listing was upto the last merit of 119.8 i.e. upto short listing No. 58. Smt. Mamta Agrawal was much below in the list of short listing. 8. Similarly, name of Dr. Chandra Shekhar appears at Sr. N. 337 of the short listing with weightage marks of 105.90 whereas the last person even according to the petitioner called for interview was with weightage marks of 114. 9. It is settled law that the short listing of the candidates by way of screening or otherwise by fixing the criteria for calling to appear in the interview or in the examination is recognised norm and has been held to be legal. No fault can be found in the criteria fixed by the RPSC as reproduced above. All the candidates have been treated equally. More meritorious, persons were called for interview as per merit and thus I am not inclined to interfere by exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were allowed to appear in the interview and they are on merits in the interview. May it be so, interviews were allowed to be held in regard to the petitioners subject to the final decision of the writ petitions. If the petitioners were not entitled to be interviewed as per short listing and there are many other candidates much above of the merit of the petitioners, who are also not called for interview because of the short-listing, the request of the petitioners to declare them as selected cannot be acceded to only because they had been allowed to appear in the interview by the order of the court. 11. Both the writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.Writ Petitions Dismissed. *******