JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition is directed against holding of re-typing test; and interview on 31.10.1992 and 9.11.1992 respectively as well as consequential initial appointment order dated 9.11.1992 (Ex. 6) so far as it relates to appointment of respondents No. 4 and 5. The petitioner has further sought a direction to prepare fresh select list of seventeen candidates interviewed on 30.9.1992 on the basis of merit in accordance with the provisions of the Service Rules of 1983 and consequently issue appointment orders for thirteen posts of LDC. 2. Before proceeding to state brief facts of the case, it would be appropriate to refer the order dated 25.7.2001 passed by Division Bench in this case setting aside the earlier order of Single Judge dated 18.9.1998 whereby the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches with a further direction to remand the case back to the Single Judge for hearing on merits. The operative part of the order dated 25.7.2001 reads as under: In view of the above ruling and also the order passed by the other Division Bench in RLW 2000(3) Raj. 1544, we are of the opinion that the appeal has to be allowed and the appellant should be given a chance to re-argue the matter before the learned Single Judge on merits and with reference to the record already placed 1 before the Court. In the foregoing circumstances, the order, passed by the learned Single Judge on 18.09.1998 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4068/1995 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Single Bench. Office to place the matter before the Regular Single Bench for hearing on merits 1 and disposing of the same accordingly. No order as to costs." (emphasis supplied) 3. Briefly stated relevant facts of the case, as per the petitioner, are that the respondent Rajasthan Legislative Assembly issued an advertisement on 25.5.1992' (Ex. 1) inviting applications for 11 temporary posts of LDCs in Assembly Secretariat. In response to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for the post of LDC. As per the advertisement, written test followed by typing test and interview was part of the process of selection. The written test was held on 29.6.1992 and on being declared successful in the written test, the petitioner and others were called for typing test on 14.9.1992. In response to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for the post of LDC. As per the advertisement, written test followed by typing test and interview was part of the process of selection. The written test was held on 29.6.1992 and on being declared successful in the written test, the petitioner and others were called for typing test on 14.9.1992. The petitioner and others who succeeded in the typing test, were called for interview on 30.9.1992 but result of the interview was not declared. It is further stated in the writ petition that, out of about 400 candidates who appeared in the written test, 38 candidates were declared pass and out of those 38 candidates only 33 appeared at the typing test held on 14.9.1992 and 17 candidates were declared qualified for interview. Rest of the candidates including respondents No. 4 and 5 could not qualify the typing test the petitioner has also stated that re-typing test was held on 31.10.1992 for 16 unsuccessful candidates who failed in the typing test held on 14.9.1992. Grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that respondent No. 4 Dharam Chand Mishra is the son of daughter of respondent No. 2 who at the relevant time was occupying the constitutional office of Speaker of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly, and respondent No. 5 Mahesh Sharma is also related to and hails from the native place of respondent No. 2. 4. Further grievance of the petitioner is that respondents No. 4 and 5 could not qualify in the typing test held on 14.9.1992 therefore, holding of the re-typing test on 31.10.1992 for them smacks of nepotism and favourtism and further that holding of re-typing test for the unsuccessful candidates, was grossly illegal, arbitrary and highly unwarranted for various reasons. 5. Respondent No. 1 has filed reply to the writ petition stating therein that the petitioner obtained 69 marks out of 200 in the written competitive examination whereas respondents No. 4 and 5 secured 87 and 86 marks respectively. The respondent No. 1 has not disputed the fact that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and other fourteen candidates could not qualify typing test held on 14.9.1992. The respondent No. 1 has not disputed the fact that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and other fourteen candidates could not qualify typing test held on 14.9.1992. It has further been stated in the reply that some of the candidates had complained that they could not perform well in the typing test on account of inadequate lighting arrangement and, therefore, they should be re-examined in the typing test. After making enquiries into the matter by the Special Secretary, Rajasthan Legislative Assembly along with other reasons, the complaint was found to be correct and genuine and, therefore, a note to this effect was submitted on 9.10.1992 by the Special Secretary to the Hon'ble Deputy Speaker who ordered for holding the typing test again allowing all the candidates who could not qualify in the typing test held on 14.9.1992, which was a qualifying test. After grant of the said opportunity to appear again in the typing test, the qualified candidates were also called for interview. In the interview, the petitioner obtained 10' marks, whereas respondents No. 4 and 5 were awarded 10' and 12' marks respectively. The merit list was prepared in which total marks obtained by the petitioner were 79' whereas the marks obtained by respondent No. 4 Dharam Chand Mishra were 97' and that of respondent No. 5 Mahesh Sharma 98'. Therefore, the total difference of marks obtained by the respondents No. 4 and 5 is of 18' and 17' marks respectively. Therefore, the allegations of mala fide, favourtism and ulterior motive are wholly baseless. The selection is fair, impartial and according to the rules and regulations and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit dated 21.10.1992 wherein he has deposed that he was out of India during the relevant period and the Dy. Speaker of the Assembly was acting on his behalf during his absence. He further deposed that a selection Board consisting of three senior officers of the Assembly Secretariat was constituted and in preparation of the merit list, he, as the Speaker of the Assembly, had no role to play and the candidates were selected and appointed strictly on the basis of merit. He has also deposed that respondent No. 4 Dharam Chand Mishra is son of his daughter and respondent No. 5 Mahesh Sharma is not related to him in any manner. He has also deposed that respondent No. 4 Dharam Chand Mishra is son of his daughter and respondent No. 5 Mahesh Sharma is not related to him in any manner. It is then deposed by him that if respondent No. 4 Dharam Chand Mishra was eligible for appointment as LDC, he qualified the written test and typing test held by the Selection Board, he was selected and appointed on the basis of merit without any favour, then simply because he is in relation, being son of his daughter, would not disentitle him nor would make him ineligible for selection and appointment as LDC in the Assembly Secretariat, in any manner. 7. No counter to the above affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. 8. On 9.4.2007, counsel for the respondent wanted to produce record relating to selection more particularly decision of the Interview Board to hold re-typing test and preparation of merit list wherein only number of written test and interview have been counted and further names of respondents No. 4 and 5 were mentioned. The counsel also took time to take instructions on the issue whether any vacant post of LDC is available or not. The case was fixed on 30.4.2007. Thereafter, record was produced before me which will be referred at the appropriate place. 9. Submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 filed affidavit with regard to his relationship with respondent No. 4 wherein he has admitted that respondent No. 4 is son of his daughter and thus, the whole exercise smacks of nepotism and favourtism as holding of re-typing test for unsuccessful candidates in which respondent No. 4 also appeared, is nothing but to grant an opportunity to unqualified candidate. Further submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that against 11 advertised posts of LDC 17 candidates qualified for interview and there was no 1 justification for holding re-tying test which was held for accommodating respondents No. 4 and 5, the former being maternal grandson of respondent No. 2 and latter belonging to the native place of respondent No. 2. 10. Submission of counsel for respondent No. 1 is that respondent No. 2 has not participated in the process of selection which was held as per the order of the Dy. Speaker who was acting as the Speaker at the relevant time when respondent No. 2 was out of India. 10. Submission of counsel for respondent No. 1 is that respondent No. 2 has not participated in the process of selection which was held as per the order of the Dy. Speaker who was acting as the Speaker at the relevant time when respondent No. 2 was out of India. Further submission of counsel for the respondent is that the petitioner has obtained lesser marks in the written examination whereas respondents No. 4 and 5 obtained more marks in the 1 written examination than the petitioner and the re-tying test was only qualifying examination held as per the recommendations of the Special Secretary and final order of the Deputy Speaker on filing the complaint about inadequate lighting arrangement in the place of typing test to be correct. Otherwise also, in the interview, the petitioner and respondents 1 No. 4 & 5 have obtained 10 or 12 marks, therefore; selection of respondents No. 4 & 5 is mainly on account of higher marks obtained in the written examination. Thus, holding of re-typing test which is a qualifying examination. The merit list was prepared on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in written test and interview. Therefore, the selection process is quite legal and justified and the appointments have been made strictly on merit. 11. I have gone through record of the case and considered rival submissions of the counsel for the parties. 12. The merit list was prepared on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in written test and interview. Therefore, the selection process is quite legal and justified and the appointments have been made strictly on merit. 11. I have gone through record of the case and considered rival submissions of the counsel for the parties. 12. Before proceeding further to deal with the aforesaid submissions, it would be appropriate to refer some part of the record, as under : fo/kku lHkk lfpoky; }kjk vk;ksftr dfu"B fyfid ijh{kk esa tks O;fDr fyf[kr ijh{kk esa esafjV esa vk;s gSa muesa ls vf/kdka'k Vad.k&ijh{kk ls fu/kkZfjr LihM DokyhQkbZ ugha dj ik;s gSaA mudh LihM fu/kkZfjr LihM ls dqN de jg xbZ gSA ;g dgus dh vko';drk ugha gS fd fyf[kr ijh{kk esa vkbZ esfjV vf/kd egRoiw.kZ gksrh gS vkSj blh ls vH;FkhZ dh ;ksX;rk dk fu/kkZj.k gksrk gSA ,slh lwjr esa ;fn vuqefr gks rks fyf[kr ijh{kk dh esfjV ds vk/kkj ij Hkh fu;qfDr nh tk ldrh gS vkSj tks O;fDr Vkbi esa ikl ugha gq, gSa muds lEcU/k esa ;g 'krZ yxk nh tkos fd ;fn os fu/kkZfjr le; esa Vkbi VSLV ikl ugha djsaxs rks mudh lsok,a lekIr dj nh tk;xh vFkok fyf[kr ijh{kk dh esfjV ds vk/kkj ij ftu vH;fFkZ;ksa dh Vkbi dh LihM 20 kCn izfr fefuV ;k mlls vf/kd gS mudh Vad.k ijh{kk dk mUgsa ,d ekSdk vkSj fn;k tk ldrk gSA lSyscl ds eqrkfcd fu/kkZfjr LihM ,DliSDVSM LihM gS vFkok leLr ijh{kk gh iqu% djkbZ tk ldrh gSA vkns'kkFkZA Sd/- 9.10.92 Lfpo fo0 lfpo egksn; ds izLrko fopkjkFkZ ,oa vkns'kkFkZ izLrqr gSA Sd/- 9.10.92 ek0 mik/;{k ( ek0 v/;{k C.P.C. conference gS fons'k nkSjs ij ) lk/kkj.kr;k written test esa ikl gksuk p;u izfdz;k dh izeq[k ojh;rk jgh gS ,slh fLFkfr esa esjh jk; esa Vad.k ijh{kk esa vuqrh.kZ lHkh vk'kkfFkZ;ksa dks iqu% Vad.k dk volj fn;k tkosA rFkk 21@ x @92 dks Vad.k ijh{kk vk;ksftr djus dh lwpuk tkjh dh tkosA fnukad 21-10-92 utnhd gS ,oa nhokyh dk R;kSgkj Hkh gS ,slh fLFkfr esa ;fn vuqefr gks rks ;g ijh{kk 31-10-92 gks j[k nh tkos ,oa Jh frydjkt ijukeh dks ijh{kk gsrq izHkkjh vf/kdkjh fu;qDr dj fn;k tkosA vkns'kkFkZ Sd/- 13.10.92 ek0 mik/;{k dfu"B fyfid ijh{kk funsZ'kkuqlkj fuEukafdr vH;fFkZ;ksa dks fnukad 31-10-92 dks e/;kUg nks cts iqu% Vad.k VSLV gsrq cqyk fy;k tkos ,oa cqyk;k i= vkt gh tkjh dj fn;k tkosA Sd/- 23.10.92 13. The merit position of the petitioner, respondent No. 4 and 5 is reproduced as under : S.No. Name Roll No. Total Marks Marks obtd. in written Test Marks obtd. in Interview Total marks 9. 10. 11. Ramkishore Dharamchand Mahesh Sharma 163 228 252 200 200 200 69 87 86 10 10 12 79 97 98 14. Although counsel for the respondents at one stage pressed the issue of estoppel but when he was confronted with the direction of the Division Bench to decide the case on merit, the aforesaid submissions were made. 15. After going through the affidavit of respondent No. 2 and record of the case, I am of the considered view that there was no illegality in holding re-typing test on the ground of inadequate lighting arrangements at the place where the unsuccessful candidates were sitting. Since the typing test was only a qualifying test, therefore, the same would result only in case of grant of opportunity which will not effect the assessment of the marks of the written test and interview and consequently, merit list. The record shows that there was no participation of respondent No. 2 in the selection process and, therefore, the allegations of favourtism and nepotism are baseless. 16. Submission of counsel for the petitioner that since 17 candidates have qualified against 11 posts, therefore, there was no need of holding re-typing test, deserves rejection for the reason that usually for interview, the service selection authorities/Public Service Commission calls the candidates in the ratio of 1 : 3. Another contention of counsel for the petitioner that re-tying test was held to accommodate respondents No. 4 and 5 is also not correct inasmuch as all the 16 candidates who were unsuccessful in the typing test held on 14.9.1992, were asked to reappear in the typing test. 17. In view of the above, the contentions of counsel for the petitioner have no force whereas contentions of counsel for respondent No. 1 have force. 18. The writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.Writ petition dismissed. *******