JUDGMENT : Mr. Veerendr Singh Siradhana, J. 1. Aggrieved of the action of the respondents in declining appointment, despite the petitioner secured more marks than the last cut-off in the selection process conducted for appointment to the post of Artisan Grade-II (Diesel Mechanic) has approached this Court praying for the following reliefs : “Hence prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and further pleased to direct the respondents to conduct fresh exam of the post of Artisan Gr. III for the petitioner and all similarly situated persons and further pleased to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Artisan Gr. III (Diesel Mechanic) with all consequential benefits w.e.f. the date on which the similarly situated persons have been appointed. For This Act of Kindness, The Petitioner Shall Ever Pray.” 2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised herein; are that in the year 2012, the respondent- Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation (for short ‘respondent-Corporation’), issued an advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Driver, Conductor, Artisan Grade-II and Grade-III (Diesel Mechanic). The petitioner submitted his application form number 7(13), in response to the advertisement for consideration of his candidature for the post of Artisan Grade-III and participated in the recruitment process with admit card with roll number 146519. The examination was scheduled to be held on 23rd September, 2012. However, since there was a complaint of ‘paper leak’, before the examination; the respondent-Corporation cancelled the examination. The examinations were rescheduled and were conducted on 21st April, 2013. The petitioner was allotted admit card afresh with roll number 2180357385 for the post of Artisan Grade-II (Diesel Mechanic). Though the petitioner lodged a protest that his candidature should be considered for appointment to the post of Artisan Grade-III (Diesel Mechanic); still he was subjected to written examination for Artisan Grade-II (Diesel Mechanic), as would be evident from documents placed on record (Annexure-5 and Annexure-6). The petitioner requested the authorities for necessary correction in his admit card and for issue of fresh admit card and consideration of his candidature accordingly; but the respondent-Corporation did not pay any heed to the request made. Be that as it may; the petitioner participated in the recruitment process with roll number 2180357385 for the post of Artisan Grade-ll (Diesel Mechanic). 3. Be that as it may; the petitioner participated in the recruitment process with roll number 2180357385 for the post of Artisan Grade-ll (Diesel Mechanic). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, emphatically argued that the respondent-Corporation, on the one hand, did not pay any heed to the request made by the petitioner for carrying out necessary correction and issue of fresh admit card as to consideration of the candidature of the petitioner in the recruitment process for Artisan Grade-Ill, and on the other hand, has declined appointment to the petitioner though the petitioner was successful having secured more marks than the last cut-off even in the recruitment process for Artisan Grade-II (Diesel Mechanic), wherein the petitioner participated with roll number 2180357385, and these facts are not in dispute. 4. Learned counsel would further submit that the respondent-Corporation has admitted the fact that the petitioner submitted his application for consideration of his candidature for appointment to the post of Artisan Grade-III (Diesel Mechanic), but on account of error committed by the Recruitment Agency he was allotted roll number and was subjected to recruitment process for appointment to the post of Artisan Grade-II (Diesel Mechanic) as would be evident from document (Annexure- R/2), placed on record with the reply to the writ application. 5. According to the learned counsel neither the respondent-Corporation permitted the petitioner to write the examination for the post of Artisan Grade-III (Diesel Mechanic), affording an opportunity to the petitioner nor has allowed the petitioner appointment to the post of Artisan Grade-II (Diesel Mechanic) wherein he was successful securing 51 marks in the OBC Category while the last cut-off marks being 49. Thus, the petitioner has been made to suffer for fault on his part. 6. Per contra; learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation while supporting the action in not according appointment to the petitioner on the post of Artisan Grade-III (Diesel Mechanic), asserted that the last cut- off percentage in the relevant category was 68%. However, the fact that the petitioner was not allowed to participate in the recruitment process, that was conducted for appointment to the post of Artisan Grade-Ill (Diesel Mechanic); is not in dispute. 7. However, the fact that the petitioner was not allowed to participate in the recruitment process, that was conducted for appointment to the post of Artisan Grade-Ill (Diesel Mechanic); is not in dispute. 7. On being queried, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation was not able to furnish any satisfactory reply as to why the petitioner was not accorded appointment while he was much higher in the merit than the last cut- off in the relevant category (OBC), for he was made to undergo the recruitment process for appointment to the post of Artisan Grade-II (Diesel Mechanic) instead of Grade-III. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions at Bar. 9. Indisputably, the petitioner submitted his application form for consideration of his candidature for appointment to the post of Artisan Grade-III (Diesel Mechanic) for which he written examination was to be conducted on 23rd September 2012. Since there was a complaint of ‘paper leak’ before the exam the examination was cancelled. The respondent-Corporation rescheduled and conducted the examination on 21st April. 2013, for the post of Artisan Grade-III and Grade-II (Diesel Mechanic). The objection made by the petitioner pointing out the discrepancy was not responded to. The fact that the petitioner secured more marks than the last cut-off marks in the category of OBC while participating in the examination for Artisan Grade-II (Diesel Mechanic); is also not in dispute. 10. By way of an application, the counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record subsequent events and documents from where it is reflected that the last cut-off marks for OBC Category for the post of Artisan Grade-II (Diesel Mechanic), is 49 marks whereas the petitioner secured 51 marks. The petitioner has been declined appointment despite having secured more marks than the lost cut-off on the pretext that the petitioner made his application for participation in the recruitment process for the post of Artisan Grade-III (Diesel Mechanic). 11. It is very surprising that the petitioner has been declared “failed” in the examination of Artisan Grade-III (Diesel Mechanic) wherein he could not participate for the respondent-Corporation allotted him roll number and question paper for recruitment process of Artisan Grade-II (Diesel Mechanic), wherein he was successful scoring more marks than the last cut-off. 12. 11. It is very surprising that the petitioner has been declared “failed” in the examination of Artisan Grade-III (Diesel Mechanic) wherein he could not participate for the respondent-Corporation allotted him roll number and question paper for recruitment process of Artisan Grade-II (Diesel Mechanic), wherein he was successful scoring more marks than the last cut-off. 12. It is also surprising the respondent-Corporation after having subjected the petitioner to the recruitment process for Artisan Grade-II (Diesel Mechanic), despite his protest did not take necessary action to correct the error committed by the Recruitment Agency. Be that as it may, even in the recruitment process for Artisan Grade-II (Diesel Mechanic), the petitioner has secured more marks than the last cut-off in the concerned Category i.e. OBC. 13. From the facts and materials available on record, it is evident that the petitioner requested the respondents for necessary correction and issue fresh admit card s to consideration of his candidature for participation in the recruitment process for the post of Artisan Grade-III. The respondent-Corporation did not pay any heed to his request and subjected him to recruitment process for the post of Artisan Grade-II (Diesel Mechanic) wherein the petitioner was completed to participate with Roll No. 2180357385 and secured 51 marks in the OBC, Category while the last cut off marks being 49. Therefore, the conduct of the respondent-Corporation while not attending to his request to carry out necessary correction and issue fresh admit card as to consideration of his candidature for the recruitment process of Artisan Grade-III while subjecting him to recruitment process for the post of Artisan Grade- II (Diesel Mechanic), and thereafter, taking a contrary stand to treat his original application for consideration of his candidature for the post of Artisan Grade-III (Diesel Mechanic) and thus, declining his candidature; the inconsistent pleas are far from satisfactory and contrary to fair play and equity. 14. In view of undisputed facts, the respondent - Corporation cannot be justified in declining consideration and consequent appointment to the petitioner for he was subjected to recruitment, process by allotting toft number as well as question paper for the post of Artisan Grade- III (Diesel Mechanic) wherein he has secured 51 marks whereas the last cut-off for OBC Category, are 49 marks. 15. For the reasons and discussions herein above, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. 16. 15. For the reasons and discussions herein above, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. 16. In the result, the respondent-Corporation is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Artisan Grade-II (Diesel Mechanic), wherein he has been successful with more marks than the last cut-off. If he is otherwise found suitable, he be adccorded appointment. 17. It is further made clear that appointment be accorded to him in case vacancy of the same recruitment process exists as on today with the respondent-Corporation. All the benefits would be admissible on notional basis from the date a certified copy of this order is made available. 18. No costs.