JUDGMENT : GITA MITTAL, J. 1. With the consent of all counsels, these three appeals are taken up for consideration. 2. Three appeals being LPA Nos. 160/2018, 174/2018 & 204/2018 have been filed before this court by the appellants, all assailing the order dated 20th August 2018 passed in SWP No. 01/2014. Inasmuch as the challenges premises on the same factual basis and to the same judgment, we are taking up these three appeals together for consideration with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 3. So far as the factual narration is concerned, the same is noted hereafter: An Advertisement Notification was published in the Employment News in its edition dated 5-11 May, 2012 inviting applications for 13 posts of Fireman with the break up as:- Unreserved 07 OBC 03 SC 01 ST 02 4. It is noteworthy to note that out of the 13 posts, one vacancy of Fireman stood reserved for ex-man. The minimum qualification prescribed in the advertisement notification was Matriculation or equivalent. The candidates were also required to possess laid down physical standards. So far as the selection process is concerned, the candidates were to be subjected to physical endurance test which was of qualifying nature. 5. Sudesh Kumar and Surinder Kumar had submitted their application forms for recruitment to the posts of Firemen. Sudesh Kumar has claimed that he was engaged as a Casual Labourer with the respondents in January, 2010, while Surinder Kumar claimed that he had been so engaged since August 2008. It was further claimed that they had been in continuous and uninterrupted service with the official respondents since their initial engagement. 6. We may note is that the selection process which every candidate has to undergo stands notified vide Government of India Letter No. 15392/SOP/MO-4(Civ)(a) dated 27th July 2005 which include the following tests:- (i) Physical Test (ii) Written Examination (iii) Medical Examination (iv) Interview 7. Inasmuch as the application forms of Sudesh Kumar and Surinder Kumar were not entertained, and subsequently even rejected, the petitioners were not allowed to participate in the selection process. It is urged by these two persons that they were not even informed of the reasons for rejection of their application forms. Inasmuch as the application forms of Sudesh Kumar and Surinder Kumar were not entertained, and subsequently even rejected, the petitioners were not allowed to participate in the selection process. It is urged by these two persons that they were not even informed of the reasons for rejection of their application forms. Aggrieved by this action on the part of the official respondents, Sudesh Kumar and Surinder Kumar filed a writ petition bearing SWP No. 835/2013 wherein an interim order dated 17th April 2013 was passed prohibiting the official respondents from finalizing the selection process. 8. It is the submission on behalf of these two writ petitioners that in violation of the specific directions issued by this Court, the official respondents finalized the selection process and even issued a select list. In this backdrop, Sudesh Kumar and Surinder Kumar were compelled to file the writ petition SWP No. 01/2014 making the following prayers: “(a) Issue a writ of certiorari by quashing impugned Select List issued by the respondents during the pendency of the earlier writ petition being SWP No. 835/2013 which is violation to the directions of the Hon’ble Court. With the consequential prayer to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners by allowing them to compete in the selection process being meritorious and experienced candidates amongst the impugned select list. (b) Call for the record of selection process from the respondents for just disposal the case. (c) Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to disengage the services of the petitioners in view of the approaching the Hon’ble Court.” 9. In view of the challenge laid in the subsequent writ petition SWP No. 835/2013 came to be dismissed on 29th November, 2016 as having been rendered infructuous. 10. So far as the stand of the official respondents to the challenges laid by the writ petitioners were concerned, objections stand filed, submitting therein that the selection in question was made by an independent selection board of officers; that the applications were scrutinized by the Board of officers and those applications which were found incomplete on scrutiny were rejected. So far as Sudesh Kumar was concerned, the official respondents had stated that his application stood rejected on the ground that he had not attached a separate photograph. So far as Sudesh Kumar was concerned, the official respondents had stated that his application stood rejected on the ground that he had not attached a separate photograph. The application of Surinder Kumar was rejected on the ground that he had neither attached a separate photograph nor the character certificate as required under the terms and conditions of the advertisement. 11. The official respondents had relied upon the following specific terms and conditions of the advertisement notification which provided thus “the application with overwriting/ erasure/incorrect/incomplete will be rejected without assigning any reason.” The advertisement further notified that any application not signed by the applicant would also be rejected. 12. The matter was heard and decided on 20th August 2018, when the learned Single Judge has taken the view that despite the stipulations contained in the advertisement notice, the respondents did not have the right to arbitrarily reject the applications for every deficiency in the application forms, even if the same was trivial in nature. The learned Single Judge was of the view that an opportunity deserves to have been granted by the official respondents to the applicants to make good the deficiency in their application forms within a specified time. 13. So far as the requirement of annexing a spare copy of the photograph with the application form was concerned, it was held by the learned Single Judge that the same would fall in the category of deficiency which was trivial in nature and could not be held to be a substantial non compliance of the terms and conditions of the advertisement notification. Therefore, such deficiency in the application forms could not deprive a candidate of his valuable right of participation in the selection process. 14. Therefore, so far as the application form of Sudesh Kumar is concerned, the learned Single Judge was of the view that his failure to annex a spare copy of the photograph was trivial in nature that he was entitled to participate in the selection process. Hence, by order dated 20th August 2018, the learned Single Judge directed the official respondents to “consider the case of petitioner No. l (Sudesh Kumar) for appointment against any available post of Fireman in the Unit. Hence, by order dated 20th August 2018, the learned Single Judge directed the official respondents to “consider the case of petitioner No. l (Sudesh Kumar) for appointment against any available post of Fireman in the Unit. Let the case of petitioner No. l be considered and appointment order in his favour be issued within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.” 15. Premised on the above reasoning, the learned Single Judge was of the view that so far as the deficiency in the application form of Surinder Kumar is concerned, he had failed to comply with the substantive requirement of the advertisement notification by not annexing the requisite character certificate. The action of the respondents in rejecting his application form and refusing him to grant an opportunity to participate in the selection process was, therefore, upheld. 16. So far as the result of petition SWP No. 01/2014 is concerned, Sudesh Kumar stands satisfied with the direction passed by the Court in his favour. 17. The order dated 20th August 2018 has been assailed by Surinder Kumar by way of LPA No. 160/2018. The challenge which has been laid by way of this appeal and which has been placed by Mr. Anil Gupta, learned counsel who appears for him, rests primarily on the submissions that along with the objections filed by the respondents, the respondents had annexed as annexure R-1, the recommendations of the Board of officers enclosing the “list of candidates of rejected applications.” It is submitted by Mr. Anil Gupta that this list did not contain the names of either Sudesh Kumar or Surinder Kumar. 18. Mr. Gupta learned counsel would submits that at the stage when the matter was listed for final disposal before the writ court, the respondents filed an application for placing on record the board proceedings containing the list of candidates whose applications stood rejected due to non compliance of the requirements of the advertisement notice wherein it was stated that the entire record had not been annexed with the objections. Leave was sought to place on record the entire board proceeding which includes the complete list of candidates whose applications stood rejected. Leave was sought to place on record the entire board proceeding which includes the complete list of candidates whose applications stood rejected. Along with this application, the official respondents had enclosed the proceedings of the Board of Officers dated 18th July 2012 containing the following entries: “List of Firemen Applicants whose applications found unacceptable as per laid down criteria:- S. No. Appeal No. Name Post applied for Cat Reasons for Non-Acceptance 1. 01 -- Fireman Gen (a) Date of issue not mentioned in Character Certificate -- -- -- -- -- -- 13. 14 Sudesh Kumar Fireman Gen (a) Separate photo not attached -- -- -- -- -- -- 137. 158 Surinder Kumar Fireman OBC (a) Separate photo not attached (b) Character Certificate not attached 19. Needless to say that Sudesh Kumar and Surinder Kumar contested this application. 20. Mr. Gupta has pointed out that even this record was erroneous inasmuch at Serial No. 137 Surinder Kumar has been reflected as OBC, whereas he had applied under the General Category. 21. The interim order dated 9th January 2014, the respondents directed not to act upon the select list pursuant to the advertisement notification for appointment of Firemen dated 5-11 May, 2012. This order was modified by an order passed on 31st August 2015 in SPW No. 01/2014 directing that the selection process may be taken ahead, while keeping two posts reserved for petitioners till disposal of the writ petition. 22. One Sanjeev Kumar stood placed at Serial No. 2 of the tentative merit list. As a result of the order dated 31st August 2015, the respondents notified the merit list in which out of 13 posts, 11 posts of the Firemen notified above were filled, while two posts in the open merit under the reserved category were kept reserved for the writ petitioners till disposal of the writ petition. 23. In the selection process which was undertaken, it appears the respondents also finalized a wait list of candidates in which one Sanjeev Kumar was placed at serial No. 2. It is evident from the above fact that in case the petitioners failed in the challenge, Sanjeev Kumar would become entitled to be appointed for the post for which he had participated in the selection. In this background, LPA No. 204/2018 has been filed by Sanjeev Kumar assailing the judgment dated 20th August 2018 passed in SWP No. 01/2014. 24. It is evident from the above fact that in case the petitioners failed in the challenge, Sanjeev Kumar would become entitled to be appointed for the post for which he had participated in the selection. In this background, LPA No. 204/2018 has been filed by Sanjeev Kumar assailing the judgment dated 20th August 2018 passed in SWP No. 01/2014. 24. A challenge has also been laid by the official respondents to the same judgment by way of LPA No. 174/2018 submitting that the said order is completely without jurisdiction inasmuch as, even if the case of the writ petitioners had to be accepted, the learned Single Judge had no jurisdiction to direct issuance of an appointment letter in favour of Sudesh Kumar petitioner No. 1 in SWP No. 01/2014. He was at best entitled to consideration for appointment. 25. It is submitted before us by Mr. Danish Bhat, learned Senior Panel Counsel that in view of the rejection of his application, Sudesh Kumar has not participated in the selection process and has not undergone any of the tests. Therefore, the impact of the impugned judgment dated 20th August 2018 is that the respondents would be required to appoint a person who has not undergone the selection process. 26. A merit list thereafter was prepared and as per vacancies, the candidates are selected as per the position in the orders of merit secured by them. 27. Mr. Danish Bhat, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the official respondents has placed before us the proceedings of the Board of Officers which scrutinized the applications for recruitment of 13 Firemen and one Majdoor dated 18th July 2012 and subsequent days. The details of the applications received and the result of the scrutiny of the Board as follows:- (a) Application for Firemen recd up to 25 May 2012 2905 (b) Applications for Mazdoor recd up to 25 May 2012 223 (c) Applications recd without superscribing the “post applied for” On the envelopes up to 25 May 2012 (last dated of receipt of application) 978 (d) Applications for Firemen recd after 25 May 2012 1248 (e) Applications for Mazdoor recd after 25 May 2012 87 (f) Applications recd without superscribing the “Post applied for” On the envelopes after 25 May 2012 749 Total 6190 28. Appendix B of the Board proceedings is the list of forms of the applicants whose applications were found not acceptable as per the laid down criteria. Appendix ‘B’ consists details of 2795 candidates. There are several persons, including Sudesh Kumar and Surinder Kumar whose applications stand rejected for not having enclosed a spare copy of photograph as well as not having attached the character certificate. 29. It is well settled that so far as the selection to any post is concerned, it has to be strictly on merit. Such merit has to be determined after putting a person to a valid process of selection. In case this court was to examine the rejection of applications from the perspective of the same being on account of a trivial or substantive objection, then the scrutiny has to be accorded to all the applications which stand rejected. In order to ensure fairness of the selection process, all such applicants whose applications stand rejected would be entitled to the same consideration as was sought by the writ petitioners namely Sudesh Kumar and Surinder Kumar. All persons whose applications stand rejected for failure to affix the photograph would require to be given the same treatment as has been directed to be accorded to Sudesh Kumar. 30. The selection process commenced pursuant to the issuance of advertisement notification dated 5-11 May, 2012. The merit was drawn after the candidates underwent the detailed selection process and scrutiny by the Board of Officers on 18th July 2012. 31. Significantly Sudesh Kumar and Surinder Kumar admittedly have not participated in the selection process at all. 32. In this background even if it could be held that it was open to this Court to draw a distinction in the deficiency in the application forms as to those which are trivial and those which are substantive, the only direction which could have been made was consideration of the applications of all the candidates whose applications were rejected for similar reasons. Certainly, no direction for making appointments could have been issued. 33. Even otherwise, in the present case, two writ petitioners whose applications were rejected, have not undergone the selection process. No direction for even consideration of their candidature de hors the participation in the selection process could be made. 34. Certainly, no direction for making appointments could have been issued. 33. Even otherwise, in the present case, two writ petitioners whose applications were rejected, have not undergone the selection process. No direction for even consideration of their candidature de hors the participation in the selection process could be made. 34. We may note that in LPA No. 174/2018 the official respondents have stated as follow: (a) Revive and release the two left over vacancies with permission to carry out the recruitment for the two left over vacancies. (b) Sanction be given for age relaxation for respondent so that he can participate in the recruitment for the vacancies released.” 35. In view of the above, the judgment dated 20.08.2018 is not sustainable. 36. In view of the above, the judgment dated 20th August 2018 directing for considering the case of Sudesh Kumar for appointment against the available post of Fireman is hereby set aside and quashed. 37. In view thereof, LPA No. 160/2018 is dismissed and LPA No. 174/2018 is allowed. 38. The interim order dated 17th April 2013 is hereby vacated. 39. The respondents shall forthwith complete the selection process based on merit and effect appointments from the wait list which was prepared by the official respondents from the candidates who have participated in the selection process conducted pursuant to the advertisement notification dated 5-11 May, 2012, for the two vacancies which were reserved by this Court by order dated 31st August 2015.