JUDGMENT : 1. Impugned in this petition is a select list issued by the official respondents for recruitment to the post of Fireman pursuant to an Advertisement Notification published in the Employment News in its edition dated 05-11th May, 2013. 2. The impugned select list has been challenged by the petitioners primarily on two counts: i. That the application forms submitted by the petitioners which were complete in all respects were arbitrarily rejected by the official respondents and thereby the petitioners despite being eligible in all respects were deprived of their right to participate in the selection process. ii. That the petitioners had been in the service of the official respondents as Casual Workers since 2010 and 2008 respectively and had been performing their duties continuously with dedication, as such, they were entitled to be considered against the quota of 1/3rd of the total vacancies of Group-D. The denial of such consideration to the petitioners would, therefore, vitiate the whole selection process. 3. The precise case set up by the petitioners in this petition is that petitioner No.1 came to be engaged as casual labourer in January 2010, whereas petitioner No.2 was so engaged in August, 2008. It is claimed that both the petitioners have been in continuous and uninterrupted service of the official respondents since their initial engagement. The advertisement notification aforesaid was issued by the official respondents which appeared in the Employment News dated 5-11th May 2013 for making recruitment to 13 posts of Fireman with the following break-up: Unreserved 07 OBC 03 SC 01 ST 02 (out of these 13 posts, one vacancy is reserved for Ex-man) 4. As per the advertisement notification aforesaid, the qualification prescribed was Matriculation or equivalent and the candidates were required to possess laid down physical standards. They were to be subjected to physical endurance test which was qualifying in nature. The petitioners, being eligible and conforming to the standards laid down in the advertisement notification aforesaid, submitted their application forms on plain paper appending therewith the requisite testimonials. It is claimed that their application forms were not entertained, but later on, rejected and the petitioners were not allowed to participate in the selection process. It is the grievance of the petitioners that despite their repeated requests, they were not informed of the reasons for rejection of their application forms. It is claimed that their application forms were not entertained, but later on, rejected and the petitioners were not allowed to participate in the selection process. It is the grievance of the petitioners that despite their repeated requests, they were not informed of the reasons for rejection of their application forms. They approached this Court through the medium of SWP No. 835/2013 in which by way of an interim directions, official respondents therein were directed not to finalize the selection process. It is submitted that in violation of the directions issued by this Court, the official respondents finalized the selection process and issued select list which constrained the petitioners to file the instant petition. It is submitted that in view of filing of the instant petition, SWP No.835/2013 came to be rendered infructuous and the same was dismissed as such by this Court on 29th November, 2016. 5. In response to the instant petition, the official respondents have filed their objections in which they have inter alia taken a stand that the selection in question was made by an independent station board of officers. The application were scrutinized by the Station Board of officers and those which were found incomplete on scrutiny were rejected. It is the specific case of the official respondents that so far as petitioner No.1 is concerned, his application was rejected on the ground that he had not attached a separate photograph, whereas the application of petitioner No.2 was rejected on the ground that he had neither attached a separate photograph nor character certificate as required under the terms and conditions of the advertisement notification aforesaid. 6. For the purposes of exercising the power of rejection, the official respondents have relied upon a specific term and condition of the advertisement notification which provides that the “application with overwriting/erasure/incorrect/incomplete will be rejected without assigning any reason”. It is further provided that the application not signed by the candidate will also be rejected. 7. 6. For the purposes of exercising the power of rejection, the official respondents have relied upon a specific term and condition of the advertisement notification which provides that the “application with overwriting/erasure/incorrect/incomplete will be rejected without assigning any reason”. It is further provided that the application not signed by the candidate will also be rejected. 7. With regard to consideration of the cases of the petitioners for appointment of Fireman as per quota earmarked for such casual labourers, the stand taken by the official respondents is that as per paragraph-8 of Adjutant General’s Branch dated 27July, 2005, two out of every three vacancies in group-D posts are to be utilized for regularization of casual labourers having temporary status as per their seniority and one vacancy is to be filled up by direct recruitment. It is stated that in terms of the aforesaid letter of Adjutant General, it is clearly stipulated that if no such person is available, all the posts are to be filled up by direct recruitment. The further stand taken by the official respondents is that the official respondents have no casual labourer having conferred the temporary status as per page 245 of Reference for Central Government Employees, 2011. In all, the claim of the petitioners for regularization has been denied on the basis of letter dated 27th July 2005 aforesaid and on the categoric assertion that the petitioners are not the casual labourers having been conferred the temporary status and, thus, eligible to be considered in the quota earmarked for the casual labourers for appointment in Group-D posts. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the opinion that two fold grievance projected by the petitioners in this petition is only partially justified. 9. So far as the claim of the petitioners for consideration for Group D posts under the quota earmarked for the purposes is concerned, the same has been seriously disputed by the official respondents. The petitioners have not placed on record any material to demonstrate that they are the casual labourers working in the respondents-Unit who have been conferred the temporary status and that the post of Fireman falls in Group-D. That apart, the petitioners have not called in question the advertisement notification whereby all the thirteen posts of Fireman available in the Unit have been thrown open for direct recruitment. For these reasons, the petitioners have no subsisting claim for regularization against the quota earmarked for the casual labourer with temporary status for appointment in Group D posts available with the respondents. 10. So far as the grievance of the petitioners that their applications were arbitrary rejected and they were illegally deprived of participation in the selection process is concerned, I find that the application form submitted by the petitioners were not complete in all respects. So far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, he had failed to annex with the application form a character certificate as well as a separate photograph. Petitioner No.1 has submitted his application form almost complete in all respects except that he had not placed along with his application form a separate/spare photograph. From the perusal of record, it also transpires that the applications to be submitted by the candidates were not in the OMR format, but were required to be submitted on the plain paper. 11. It is true that in the advertisement notification aforesaid, the official respondents had made a clear stipulation that incomplete forms shall not be accepted and the same would be rejected without assigning any reason, but that would not mean that the respondents had the right to indulge in arbitrariness. Ordinarily, the deficiencies in the application forms particularly those which were trivial in nature should have been notified to the candidates to be made good within a specified time. Admittedly, such opportunity was never given to the petitioners. Otherwise also, the non-submission of character certificate by petitioner No.2 may be taken as not fulfilling the substantial requirement of the advertisement notification, but failure to annex a spare copy of the photograph cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be said to be a substantial non-compliance of the terms and conditions of the advertisement notification. The requirement of placing spare copy of photograph along with the application form was too trivial in nature to deprive a candidate of his valuable right of participation. 12. The requirement of placing spare copy of photograph along with the application form was too trivial in nature to deprive a candidate of his valuable right of participation. 12. While I may agree with the stand of the official respondents that the application form of petitioner No.2 was rejected for not complying with the substantive requirement of the advertisement notification by not annexing with the application form the requisite character certificate, yet the rejection of application form of petitioner No.1 for not appending spare photograph with the application form, on the face of it, is arbitrary and not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the writ petition insofar as petitioner No.2 is concerned is dismissed. However, petition insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned, is partly allowed. The official respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner No.1 for appointment against any available post of Fireman in the Unit. Let the case of petitioner No.1 be considered and appointment order in his favour issued within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petition is accordingly disposed of along with connected MPs. Interim directions, if any, passed in this petition shall stand vacated.