JUDGMENT : DINESH MEHTA, J. Feeling aggrieved of the respondents' action of reflecting petitioner's name in the list of ineligible/rejected candidates, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Narrating in a nutshell, the facts appertain are that petitioner having acquired GNM Diploma Course and professionally qualified for the post of Nurse Grade-II/GNM, vied pursuant to recruitment notification dated 30.05.2018, issued by the respondents for filling up 6035 posts of Non-TSP area. 3. The petitioner applied for registration with the Rajasthan Nursing Council (hereinafter referred to as the Council’ or ‘RNC) and was granted registration certificate on 11.02.2009. Said certificate was renewed from time to time for the period upto 31.12.2018. 4. On the strength of her educational qualification and the registration with RNC, the petitioner was selected as Nurse Grade-II on contractual basis and has been discharging her duties at MDM Hospital, Jodhpur since 01.09.2009. 5. While the petitioner was working on contractual basis, the State of Madhya Pradesh issued a recruitment notification for filling up regular posts of GNM for which the requirement was to have registration in the State of Madhya Pradesh and thus, she applied for migration of her registration to Nursing Council, Bhopal on 21.07.2011. 6. According to the petitioner, before a registration certificate was issued by the Nursing Council, Bhopal, she changed her mind and requested the said Nursing Council, Bhopal to not to issue registration certificate. A copy of the application/letter duly received by the Office of Nursing Council, Bhopal has been placed on record as Annex.3. 7. It was the assertion of the petitioner that she neither got herself enrolled with Nursing Council, Bhopal nor she ever joined in Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner continued working at MDM Hospital, Jodhpur and her registration with Rajasthan Nursing Council was renewed on 27.01.2014 making it valid till 31.12.2018. 8. When the respondents issued above recruitment notification dated 30.05.2018, the petitioner filled her application form, indisputably before the last date of submitting application form, which was 03.07.2018. 9. Before the process of recruitment could complete, validity of petitioner's registration certificate expired on 31.12.2018, thus, she applied for renewal of registration, while depositing requisite fee vide receipt No. 199355 dated 18.01.2019. 10. As the petitioner did not receive her renewed registration certificate for months, she made enquiries in the Office of respondent-Council in this regard. 9. Before the process of recruitment could complete, validity of petitioner's registration certificate expired on 31.12.2018, thus, she applied for renewal of registration, while depositing requisite fee vide receipt No. 199355 dated 18.01.2019. 10. As the petitioner did not receive her renewed registration certificate for months, she made enquiries in the Office of respondent-Council in this regard. She was informed that her registration certificate had been wrongly renewed in 2014. According to respondent - Council as she had obtained NOC in the year 2011, her registration could not be renewed in December, 2014. 11. Such being the position, the petitioner thought it appropriate to apply for registration afresh, which she did on 19.08.2019, by way of tendering a fee of Rs. 2000/-, vide receipt No. 14715 of even date and a fresh certificate of registration came to be issued on 13.01.2020. 12. In the meantime, the petitioner appeared in the written examination and having secured higher marks (63.939%) than the cut off of her category (58.192%), she was called for document verification on 23.08.2019. 13. During the course of document verification, petitioner produced her original registration certificate with Rajasthan Nursing Council dated 11.02.2009 (having its validity till 31.12.2018), along with other relevant documents. Petitioner also produced proof of having applied for renewal/fresh registration. 14. On 08.01.2020 a provisional merit list and another list came to be issued giving out names of candidates, whose candidature was rejected. The petitioner found her name reflected in the list of rejected candidates, citing “Rejected due to RNC”. 15. In furtherance of the note appended with the list published on 08.01.2020, the petitioner submitted her online grievance on 15.01.2020, however, the same remained unheeded and petitioner's candidature remained rejected, as final select list that was issued on 24.01.2020 did not include petitioner's name. 16. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition inter alia with a specific case that the petitioner did have a valid registration certificate (dated 11.02.2009), which was valid on the date of submitting application and even on the date of document verification, she had applied for renewal/fresh registration. Petitioner's contention is that the conditions of the advertisement stood complied with. 17. Mr. Petitioner's contention is that the conditions of the advertisement stood complied with. 17. Mr. Khileree, learned counsel for the petitioner, invited Court's attention towards Para No. 5 of the advertisement dated 30.05.2018 and submitted that as per the note appended with eligibility clause, a candidate applying for the post of Nurse Grade-II was required to have a valid registration till the last date of submitting application form (12.05.2018). 18. While pointing out that the last date of submitting application form was 03.07.2018, he submitted that the date i.e. 12.05.2018 shown as last date in the note aforesaid, is a typographical error. 19. Be that as it may, contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that on the last date of submitting application form namely 03.07.2018 (and even on 12.05.2018), the petitioner was possessed with a valid certificate and as soon as the validity of the registration expired, she had applied for renewal thereof. He added that since the respondents delayed renewal of the said certificate, she was constrained to apply for registration afresh, on 19.08.2019, prior to the date of document verification. 20. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the date of document verification, petitioner had produced both the receipts. Though the registration certificate ultimately came to be issued on 13.01.2020, after issuance of provisional merit list, nevertheless the petitioner had furnished her online grievance on the official portal of the respondents before final select list was issued, but the respondents did not treat her eligible, for no justifiable reason. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that true it is, that on the date of document verification, petitioner did not have a current registration certificate, as her earlier certificate stood expired on 31.12.2018. But then, the fault did not lie with the petitioner and the fault or delay in renewal of the registration or grant of registration was entirely attributable to Rajasthan Nursing Council. The petitioner, who is a meritorious candidate, cannot be deprived of her right to secure appointment. 22. While contending that the action of the respondents is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, learned counsel argued that as per Regulation 46 of Rajasthan Nursing Council Regulations, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations of 1964’), an incumbent who intends to serve or pursue profession of Nurse, Midwife, Health Visitor etc. 22. While contending that the action of the respondents is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, learned counsel argued that as per Regulation 46 of Rajasthan Nursing Council Regulations, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations of 1964’), an incumbent who intends to serve or pursue profession of Nurse, Midwife, Health Visitor etc. is required to have herself/himself registered with the Rajasthan Nursing Council within a period of 3 months of joining and thus, the note appended with the eligibility clause requiring a candidate to have a valid registration certificate with Rajasthan Nursing Council at the time of submitting application is contrary to Regulation 46 of the Regulations of 1964. 23. Learned counsel argued that in the peculiar facts of the case, the petitioner should be treated to be eligible for the post of Nurse Grade-II, as she was having a valid registration certificate on the date of issuance of final select list dated 24.01.2020 and she could very well produce the same at the time of joining, if given an opportunity. 24. Mr. Khileree, invited Court's attention towards an order dated 28.04.2020, issued by the Additional Director (Administration) of the respondent - Department, particularly Condition No. 15 thereof and submitted that the respondents themselves have relaxed the condition of the advertisement by providing following stipulation: ^^15- vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk dk;Zxzg.k djrs le; jktLFkku uflZax dkSafly esa jftLVªs'ku dk fnukad 3-07-2018 dks rFkk dk;Zxzg.k frfFk dks oS/k jftLVªs'ku izek.k i= izLrqr djuk gksxkA^^ 25. He argued that petitioner's case falls within the scope of above Condition No. 15, which was issued in relation to this very recruitment. He emphasised that the petitioner was having a valid registration on 03.07.2018 (last date of submitting application form) and also on 13.01.2020, before the final list was issued. 26. Having made submission on merits of his case, learned counsel would point out that by way of interim order dated 17.02.2020, the respondents had been directed to keep one seat in petitioner's category reserved. He would further mention that by way of a detailed order, respondents' application under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India has been rejected and thus, the petitioner, who is indisputably a meritorious candidate, be accorded appointment, as she is not likely to adversely affect anybody's rights. He would further mention that by way of a detailed order, respondents' application under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India has been rejected and thus, the petitioner, who is indisputably a meritorious candidate, be accorded appointment, as she is not likely to adversely affect anybody's rights. He prayed that a direction be also issued to the respondents to accord her notional benefits from the date of issuance of the select list dated 24.01.2020. 27. Mr. K. S. Rajpurohit, AAG assisted by Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that on 27.01.2014, the petitioner had got her certificate renewed in connivance with the officials of RNC. He argued that petitioner had obtained an ‘NOC on 06.09.2011 and consequent to obtaining NOC from RNC, her registration with the RNC for all practical purposes stood cancelled, due to which petitioner's request of renewal could not have been accepted. 28. Sum and substance of arguments of learned counsel for the State was, that petitioner did not have a valid registration on the date of submitting application form and thus even if she was able to obtain a fresh registration on 13.01.2020, she cannot be held eligible for appointment. 29. According to the learned counsel for the respondent - State, petitioner neither fulfilled the conditions enumerated in the eligibility clause of the advertisement dated 30.05.2018 nor does she meet the requirement of order dated 28.04.2020. In other words, learned AAG submitted that the petitioner neither had a valid registration on the last date of submitting application form nor could she produce a valid registration during the course of document verification, hence, respondents' action of rejecting petitioner's candidature does not suffer from any infirmity. 30. Mr. Abhinav Jain, learned counsel appearing for the Rajasthan Nursing Council, made a number of submissions surrounding renewal of petitioner's registration with RNC. He highlighted that as the petitioner had applied for registration with the Nursing Council, Bhopal and at the request of such Council at Bhopal, the State had forwarded an NOC in September, 2011. He thus, contended that petitioner's registration with Rajasthan Nursing Council stood cancelled and the renewal got done by the petitioner with the connivance of the staff of respondent - Council was illegal and is liable to be ignored. 31. He thus, contended that petitioner's registration with Rajasthan Nursing Council stood cancelled and the renewal got done by the petitioner with the connivance of the staff of respondent - Council was illegal and is liable to be ignored. 31. Learned counsel submitted that the Council had already initiated action against its erring officials, who had renewed petitioner's registration ignoring the fact that the respondent-Council had issued No Objection Certificate on 06.09.2011. 32. Learned counsel argued that the petitioner having illegally procured renewal of registration cannot be granted any indulgence and she cannot be held eligible for serving the State as Nurse Grade-II, for want of a valid registration with RNC. 33. Mr. Khileree, learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder submitted that the petitioner has been holding a valid registration with her and since 2009 she has been serving none other than the respondents themselves (may be under contractual employment), that too on the strength of such certificate renewed from time to time. 34. He pointed out that immediately upon expiry of the term of validity of the certificate, on 18.01.2019, the petitioner had applied for its renewal. But, the respondents did not do anything for about 7 months. He expressed concern that had the respondents informed the petitioner about the problem in renewal, she would have taken remedial measures or could have applied afresh, immediately in the month of January, 2019 itself. 35. While pointing out that petitioner was constrained to apply afresh for registration on 19.08.2019, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that but for the vindictive attitude of the respondent - Council, the petitioner would have secured a fresh registration by August, 2019, much before she was called for document verification. 36. He also argued that if the respondents were of the view that the petitioner had illegally got her registration renewed in the year 2014, they ought to have at least issued a notice to the petitioner in this regard. If that was done, then, the petitioner could have apprised the respondents about the requisite facts and in worst-case scenario, would have applied for a fresh registration. 37. If that was done, then, the petitioner could have apprised the respondents about the requisite facts and in worst-case scenario, would have applied for a fresh registration. 37. He argued that action of the Rajasthan Nursing Council so also the Medial & Health Department is arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice, while maintaining that the petitioner has been deprived of her legal rights for none of her fault, despite being fully eligible, qualified and meritorious. 38. He contended that allegation of connivance levelled by the respondents is absolutely unfounded, while reiterating that the petitioner never got herself registered with Council of Madhya Pradesh and had rather, requested Nursing Council, Bhopal to cancel/not to act upon ‘No Objection Certificate’ by way of writing a letter dated 01.05.2012. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner was under a bonafide belief that her registration with respondent - Council was valid, which was fortified from the fact that the same stood renewed on 27.01.2014. 39. Heard. 40. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would not be out of context to firstly refer to and reproduce relevant clause of the advertisement, namely Para No. 5, which deal with the eligibility-Educational and Professional Qualification’: ^^5- ;ksX;rk HkrhZ gsrq foKkfir inksa ds fy;s 'kS{kf.kd ,oa O;kolkf;d ;ksX;rk dk fooj.k fuEukuqlkj gS & inuke 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk O;olkf;d ;ksX;rk Nurse Grade- IInd 1. Senior Secondary or its equivalent 1. GNM Course or its equivalent qualification from institute recognized by State Government. 2. Registered In RNC. uksV%& O;kolkf;d ;ksX;rk ds fcUnq la[;k ¼2½ ds fy;s jktLFkku uflZax dkSafly] t;iqj }kjk tkjh iath;u Øekad fy[kuk vfuok;Z gSA iath;u ds vHkko esa iath;u laca/kh vU; dksbZ nLrkost ekU; ugha gksxkA vH;FkhZ dk jktLFkku uflZax dkSafly esa iath;u HkrhZ gsrq vkosnu dh vafre frfFk 12-05-2018 rd gksuk vfuok;Z gSA mDr ds vfrfjDr vH;FkhZ ds fy;s jktLFkku fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; v/khuLFk lsok fu;e 1965 esa ;Fkkfofgr leLr vU; ;ksX;rk;sa iw.kZ djuk vfuok;Z gSA og vkosfnr in ds fy;s bu fu;eksa ds rgr~ fu;qfDr gsrq v;ksX; ugha gksuk pkfg;sA^^ 41. It is not in dispute that the last date of submitting application form was 03.07.2018 and the last date (12.05.2018) indicated in the note appended with Para No. 5 is/was a typographical error, which is evident from a simple look at aforequoted Condition No. 15 of the order dated 28.04.2020. 42. It is not in dispute that the last date of submitting application form was 03.07.2018 and the last date (12.05.2018) indicated in the note appended with Para No. 5 is/was a typographical error, which is evident from a simple look at aforequoted Condition No. 15 of the order dated 28.04.2020. 42. Reproduction of Regulation 46 of the Regulations of 1964 would also be seminal and thus, the same is being done hereunder: “46. Application for Registration - (1) A candidate after passing the Final/Second examination of any of the above courses shall apply in Form VII for Registration of her/his name under Section 14 of the Act to the Council through the Had of the Institution from which she/he appeared for the Final/Second Examination. The certificate and the registration number which shall be endorsed on the body of the certificate shall be transmitted to the candidate through the Head of the Institution on payment of the following fees:— (i) for certificate in General Nursing Rs. 16/- (ii) for certificate in Midwifery course Rs. 10/- (iii) for certificate in Auxiliary Nursing Midwifery Course Rs. 11/- (iv) the Health Visitors Course Rs. 11/- (2) Nurses, Midwives, Lady Health Visitors who join the service in Rajasthan from any other State must have herself/himself registered with the Rajasthan Nursing Council within 3 months after joining under clause (ii) of Section 13 of the Act by applying in Form VIII. (3) Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors entitled to be registered under clause (iii) of Section 13 of the Act shall apply to the Registrar From VIII for Registration to the Rajasthan Nursing Council.” 43. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that petitioner did have a valid registration certificate, alive and kicking, when she submitted her application form - as the validity of the certificate was upto 31.12.2018. 44. The note appended with Para-5 of the advertisement required that a candidate must have a valid registration certificate on the last date of submitting application form. The petitioner was, therefore, eligible on the date of submitting application form. 45. No sooner had petitioner's registration certificate expired (on 31.12.2018), than she applied for its renewal by way of applying/tendering fee of Rs. 1000/- on 18.01.2019. This being the position, the petitioner cannot be alleged to be lax in any manner. The petitioner was, therefore, eligible on the date of submitting application form. 45. No sooner had petitioner's registration certificate expired (on 31.12.2018), than she applied for its renewal by way of applying/tendering fee of Rs. 1000/- on 18.01.2019. This being the position, the petitioner cannot be alleged to be lax in any manner. Petitioner has been pursuing her registration, which is evident from the fact that when she could not get her registration renewed, she applied for fresh registration by way of submitting an application and tendering requisite fee of Rs. 2000/- (on 19.08.2019), before 23.08.2019 - the date of verification of documents. 46. Respondents' argument that petitioner had connived with the officials of the respondent - Council and illegally got her registration certificate renewed on 27.01.2014, is both untenable and unsustainable. 47. They have not placed on record any document evincing that the petitioner had been put to any notice about such wrongful renewal. Concededly, the respondents have not taken up any proceedings for cancellation of registration (if permissible in law) much less, cancelling the same. 48. The respondents have failed to bring to the notice of this Court, any statutory provisions or guidelines etc. providing that merely on issuance of an ‘NOC’ by Nursing Council of one State, a candidate's registration stands cancelled. 49. The respondents have not brought on record any evidence that the petitioner had got herself registered with Nursing Council, Bhopal and continued with dual registration. Petitioner's assertion that she never got registration with Nursing Council, Bhopal remains unrefuted/undisputed. 50. The respondents' stand that might be, the petitioner is having or had obtained a registration certificate of Nursing Council, Bhopal has no legs to stand. Given that petitioner has been serving none other than the respondent - Medical & Health Department, as a contractual Nurse Grade-II since 2009, respondents' stance rather, apprehension turns out to be unfounded. 51. The respondents' version that petitioner has got her registration renewed with connivance (though not established), even if assumed to be having some substance, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner cannot be stripped off her right of appointment, more particularly, as no proceedings worth the name have been initiated seeking to cancel her registration. 52. 51. The respondents' version that petitioner has got her registration renewed with connivance (though not established), even if assumed to be having some substance, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner cannot be stripped off her right of appointment, more particularly, as no proceedings worth the name have been initiated seeking to cancel her registration. 52. This Court is of the firm view that petitioner's registration certificate sans any cancellation or in absence of evidence of her having dual registration (in Madhya Pradesh so also in Rajasthan) cannot be treated to be wanting in any manner. 53. On the date of submitting application form, the petitioner was clearly eligible, as she fulfilled the requirement of having a valid registration, as her registration certificate was having its validity upto 31.12.2018. 54. The conditions of the advertisement are silent so far as requirement of continuation of the registration on the date of appointment is concerned. The terms of the advertisement simply provide that on the date of submitting application form, a candidate must have a valid registration certificate. 55. But this condition cannot be read in isolation. A purposive reading of the advertisement and Regulations of 1964 would show that a candidate must have a valid registration certificate even when, she joins pursuant to an order of appointment. And, that is where, the above quoted Condition No. 15 of the order dated 28.04.2020 comes into play. Condition No. 15 of the order dated 28.04.2020 is in tandem with Regulation 46 of the Regulations of 1964, which provides that a candidate is required to produce a valid registration within 3 months of the joining. 56. There is no gainsaying the fact that the petitioner has secured a registration certificate on 13.01.2020, issued by none other than the Rajasthan Nursing Council, before the final select list came to be issued on 24.01.2020. 57. Indubitably, the petitioner had submitted her online grievance on the official portal on 15.01.2020. The respondents were required to consider the same pragmatically. 58. This Court has reached to an unwavering conclusion that the petitioner fulfills both the requirements, namely - having a valid registration certificate on the date of submitting application form and also the other requirement in terms of Regulation 46 of the Regulations of 1964, as she was having a valid registration certificate at the time of issuance of select list. Petitioner's eligibility, therefore, cannot be questioned. Petitioner's eligibility, therefore, cannot be questioned. 59. Much has been said by the respondents about the petitioner's endeavour of conniving and contriving with the officials of the RNC in a bid to get her registration renewed, but this Court fails to comprehend as to why would the petitioner collude and unethically get her registration certificate renewed, when she has been serving in the State of Rajasthan since 2009 and has not obtained any registration with Nursing Council, Bhopal. 60. This Court finds truth in petitioner's version that as she had requested the Nursing Council, Bhopal not to act upon her request for registration, she bonafidely believed that her registration in the State of Rajasthan is still valid and thus, applied for its renewal. The renewal was done by the respondents, admittedly without any objection or demur. 61. This Court cannot countenance the contention of the respondents that on issuance of no objection certificate, a candidate's certificate stands cancelled. The reasons are not far to seek - firstly such argument is not supported by any statutory provision and secondly, cursory reference of a letter dated 05.04.2018, written by Indian Nursing Council is of no avail. Though the communication dated 05.04.2018 provides that on issuance of no objection certificate, the candidate's registration shall be treated to be cancelled, but there is no legal support to this communication. 62. In the opinion of this Court erasure of entry of a candidate in the register maintained by the Council can take place only in the circumstances envisaged under the Rajasthan Nurses, Midwives, Health Visitors and Auxiliary Nurse-Midwives Registration Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1964’). 63. Sections 18 and 19 of the Act of 1964 become relevant for the purposes of deletion of the name, for which they are being reproduced hereunder: “18. Erasure of fraudulent and incorrect entries - Any entry in the registers, which is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar to have been fraudulently or incorrectly made, may be erased therefrom by an order in writing recorded by the Registrar. 19. Prohibition of registration etc. Erasure of fraudulent and incorrect entries - Any entry in the registers, which is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar to have been fraudulently or incorrectly made, may be erased therefrom by an order in writing recorded by the Registrar. 19. Prohibition of registration etc. - (1) The Council may, prohibit the registration of any person as a nurse, midwife, health visitor or auxiliary nurse-midwife and, if such person is already so registered, may direct the removal of his name from the register on any of the following grounds, namely:— (a) that he has been convicted of any such offence as implies in the opinion of the Council any defect of character such as would render him unfit for duty; or (b) that he has been found by the Council to be guilty of an offence which, in its opinion, indicates professional incompetence, negligence or contravention of regulations, ordinarily included in the performance of his duty; or (c) that he has been found by the Council to be guilty of professional misconduct or infamous conduct in any professional respect; or (d) that there are defects in his character which, in the opinion of the Council, would render the entry or retention of his name on the register undesirable: provided that no action shall be taken by the Council under this section until after due inquiry, at which the person concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity to be heard in his defence, the person concerned is found to be disqualified as specified in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d). (2) Any name removed from the register under sub-section (1) may afterwards be re-entered in the register and any order of prohibition of registration passed under sub-section (1) may be withdrawn under the direction of the Council given by a majority of two thirds of the members present and voting at the meeting.” 64. If the allegation of respondents were to be accepted that the petitioner had got her registration certificate renewed fraudulently, then RNC was required to pass an order in writing, as mandated by Section 18 of the Act of 1964. The respondents have neither passed any order cancelling petitioner's registration nor have they made any assertion that petitioner's registration stood cancelled. 65. The respondents have neither passed any order cancelling petitioner's registration nor have they made any assertion that petitioner's registration stood cancelled. 65. If the respondents felt that petitioner has fraudulently or irregularly got her registration renewed, they were required to pass an order in writing under communication to the petitioner, obviously after adhering to principles of natural justice. 66. Admittedly, nothing of this sort has been done by the respondents. The letter dated 05.04.2018 referred to by the Rajasthan Nursing Council to assert that petitioner's registration stood cancelled is nothing more than a fig leaf to cover up its inaction or lackadaisical attitude. 67. If the respondents' stand that immediately on grant of no objection certificate by Rajasthan Nursing Council, a candidate's registration stands cancelled is taken to its logical end, then in the opinion of this Court, during the interregnum period of issuance of a no objection certificate by RNC and grant of registration by other State, a duly qualified and eligible Nurse Grade-II/Midwife would lend themselves in no man's land - a situation of having no registration at all. Such situation, would naturally impinge upon a candidate's fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 16 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 68. That apart, the petitioner had applied for renewal of her registration on 18.01.2019 and again applied for fresh registration on 19.08.2019. It was thus, the fault of the respondent - Nursing Council, which sat tight over the matter and neither renewed petitioner's registration nor did it issue any notice to her. Redtapism prevalent in RNC has resulted in rejection of petitioner's candidature. 69. In the backdrop of factual matrix of the case in hands, this Court does not find the petitioner to be faultering or erring, in any manner. 70. As a necessary corollary or consequence of discussions forgoing, the writ petition succeeds. 71. The list dated 08.01.2020 reflecting petitioner's name in the list of rejected candidates, is, therefore, quashed and set aside, albeit, qua the petitioner. 72. The respondents are directed to accord appointment to the petitioner, if she fulfills other eligibility criteria. 73. Appointment order and requisite positing order be issued to the petitioner latest by 31.05.2021. 74. The petitioner shall be entitled for notional benefits w.e.f. 24.01.2020, when the persons, less meritorious than her, have been given/offered appointment (vide select list dated 24.01.2020). 75. Costs made easy. 76. 73. Appointment order and requisite positing order be issued to the petitioner latest by 31.05.2021. 74. The petitioner shall be entitled for notional benefits w.e.f. 24.01.2020, when the persons, less meritorious than her, have been given/offered appointment (vide select list dated 24.01.2020). 75. Costs made easy. 76. All interlocutory applications, including stay application stand disposed of.