JUDGMENT : (Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.) : 1. Since all the instant petitions involve a common controversy though with marginal variation in the contextual facts, therefore, for the purposes of the present analogous adjudication, the facts and the prayer clauses are being taken from the above-numbered D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15641/2021, while treating the same as a lead case; thus, the rival submissions of the parties and the observations of the Court, in the present judgment, would also be based, particularly, on the factual matrix of the lead case. 1.1 The prayer clauses read as under:- “It is therefore, humbly prayed on behalf of the petitioners that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and a) The impugned Notice dated 28.10.2021 (Annex.8) issued by the Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur declaring the revised result of Shorthand Test and Computer Test for Stenographer Examination may kindly be declared illegal and accordingly be set aside; b) The Impugned Notice dated 30.10.2021 (Annex.9) issued by the Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur rescheduling the interview rounds for the newly selected candidates in the revised result of Shorthand Test and Computer Test for Stenographer Examination may kindly be declared illegal, without jurisdiction and accordingly be set aside; c) The Respondents may kindly be directed to upheld the previous final result of recruitment to the posts of Stenographers Examination 2020 published on 31.07.2021 (Annex.6); d) The Petitioners be given joining upon the posts of Stenographer Grade-III (Hindi & English) and Stenographer as per the final result of Stenographers Examination 2020 published on 31.07.2021; e) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners;” 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel of the petitioners, are that the respondents issued a detailed advertisement dated 18.01.2020 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for direct recruitment on the post of Stenographer Grade-III (Hindi/English) under the establishment of the District Courts, Legal Services Authorities and Permanent Lok Adalats in the State. 2.1. The petitioners submitted the application form and participated in the recruitment process (Shorthand test and Computer test) which was held between 03.04.2021 to 08.04.2021; thereafter, the respondents declared the results on 30.06.2021, whereby the petitioners were declared provisionally qualified for the interview. 2.2. 2.1. The petitioners submitted the application form and participated in the recruitment process (Shorthand test and Computer test) which was held between 03.04.2021 to 08.04.2021; thereafter, the respondents declared the results on 30.06.2021, whereby the petitioners were declared provisionally qualified for the interview. 2.2. Subsequently, the respondents issued a notice dated 06.07.2021 wherein it was notified that the interview for the provisionally qualified candidates would be held between 28.07.2021 and 30.07.2021 in two slots and the candidates would be required to bring the requisite documents in original, as stipulated in the list appended to the said notice. Thereafter, the respondents declared the final results on 31.07.2021 and since the candidates selected were less in numbers, therefore, the earlier decided margin of error i.e. 5% was enhanced to 15%, meaning thereby, such errors were stipulated to be deducted from the total number of words. 2.3. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid results, certain candidates filed a representation before the respondents and also filed Writ petition before this Hon’ble Court i.e.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11003/2021 & Other connected matters. A Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 25.10.2021 disposed of the said petition without going into the merits of the case, as the respondents were going to revise the results of the examination in question. Subsequently, the respondents vide the impugned order 28.10.2021 cancelled the provisional results dated 30.06.2021 and the final results dated 31.07.2021 on the ground that while preparing the result on earlier occasion, the software agency did not give effect of mistakes committed by the candidates and the results were published based on the marks obtained by the candidates with no deduction of the errors, and the marks were awarded only on the basis of correct words typed and some other discrepancies were also noticed. In furtherance, the respondents issued the revised result and cut off marks; 46 candidates, who were selected in the previous results, were once again declared as selected in the revised results as well, whereas around 350 candidates, who were declared selected in previous results had not been selected in the revised result. Thereafter, the respondents vide impugned notice dated 30.10.2021 issued a schedule for the interview of the selected candidates (except the aforesaid 46 candidates) selected in the revised result. 2.4. Thereafter, the respondents vide impugned notice dated 30.10.2021 issued a schedule for the interview of the selected candidates (except the aforesaid 46 candidates) selected in the revised result. 2.4. The petitioners in WP No.15641/2021, lead case, filed an affidavit, wherein it was mentioned that during pendency of the writ petition, the respondents issued the final results of the recruitment in question on 15.12.2021, which as per the petitioners, contained anomalies as, amongst others, there was neither any fixed method nor formula used before declaration of the said results and nowhere it has been clarified that as to how calculations were made and how the cut off list was prepared, and thus, apart from the above impugned orders/notices, the petitioners are assailing the said revised final results dated 15.12.2021 as well. 3. Thus, being aggrieved of the aforesaid, the present petitions have been preferred claiming, in sum and substance, the afore-quoted reliefs. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents had previously published the results of the shorthand and computer tests with selection of 422 candidates, but later came up with the technical errors in the software at the time of evaluation of answer-sheets of the candidates, and on that ground the respondents revised the results, whereby the candidates who were selected earlier had not been declared selected, and therefore, issuance of the revised results is illegal and against the principles of natural justice. 4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents revised the results on the ground that errors were not counted, at the time of evaluation of answer sheets of the candidates, but if the errors were not counted, then in what way the respondents arrived at the conclusion of expanding the scope of errors from 5% to 15%. It was also submitted that if the errors was not counted previously i.e. before publication of the earlier results, then in the revised results the merit must have gone down and not on the higher side, as is discernible from a bare perusal of both the results. 4.2. It was also submitted that if the errors was not counted previously i.e. before publication of the earlier results, then in the revised results the merit must have gone down and not on the higher side, as is discernible from a bare perusal of both the results. 4.2. Learned counsel also submitted that after the revised results, almost 85% candidates, including the petitioners, who were previously declared selected, are not being selected as per the revised results, and in that case, the respondents are duty to bound to at least subject the answer sheet of the candidates to inspection and make the same open to public domain, so as to show that a fair and transparent method has been adopted in finalizing the recruitment process in question, which is clearly absent in the present case. 4.3. Learned counsel further submitted that for the selection of Stenographer (Hindi), a speed of 70 words per minute had been stipulated, and for Stenographer (English), a speed of 80 words per minute was stipulated, in Shorthand Speed category, contrary to what had been given in the previous results, wherein there were numerous fluctuations with regard to the shorthand speed. It was also submitted there is neither a fixed method nor a formula which was used before publishing the whole results. 4.4. Learned counsel also submitted that as per the respondents, the results were revised due to technical error, and in that case, the respondents, before revising the results, ought to have checked the whole data and records, and only thereafter, in case anomalies or erroneous evaluation is detected, the respondents may be able to justify their impugned action, but the respondents have proceeded to revise the results in a hurried manner and within a short span of time, which itself creates a doubt upon the method adopted by the respondents in conducting and finalizing the recruitment process in question. 4.5 In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:- (a) Sachin Kumar and Ors. Vs Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board & Ors. (2021) 4 SCC 631 ; (b) Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. Vs Rajasthan High Court & Ors. (Civil Appeal No 2634/2013 decided on 20.03.2013) by the Hon’ble Apex Court; (c) Krishna Rai (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. Vs Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board & Ors. (2021) 4 SCC 631 ; (b) Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. Vs Rajasthan High Court & Ors. (Civil Appeal No 2634/2013 decided on 20.03.2013) by the Hon’ble Apex Court; (c) Krishna Rai (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. Vs Banaras Hindu University Through Registrar & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 4578-4580/2022, decided on 16.06.2022) by the Hon’ble Apex Court; (d) Ramjit Singh Kardam & Ors. Vs Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. AIR 2020 SC 2060 ; (e) Raj Kumar & Ors. Vs Shakti Raj & Ors. (1997) 9 SCC 527 ; (f) Asha Kaul & Ors. Vs State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors (1993) 2 SCC 573 . 5. On the other hand, Mr.Manoj Bhandari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Aniket Tater & Ms.Sapna Vaishnav; Mr.A.K. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Vishnu Kant Sharma, appearing on the behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the respondents have already issued appointment orders for both Stenographer (English) and Stenographer (Hindi), and the petitioners while filing the instant petitions have not impleaded the persons, selected in pursuance of the revised results, as party in this case, and therefore, the present petitions are not maintainable on that sole ground. 5.1. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that on 03.12.2021 the information regarding additional requirement of the stenographers was received from District Judges and Member Secretary, RSLSA, and therefore, additional 60 candidates were called for interview on 14.12.2021 and the revised final results of 482 candidates were declared on 15.12.2021, who were called for interview. Subsequent to the interview on 11.11.2021, 12.11.2021 and 14.12.2021, the appointment orders were issued vide order dated 15.12.2021, and thus, it is apparent on the face of the record that the entire selection process is completed in a fair, transparent and impartial manner, and therefore, the petitioners have no right to challenge the selection process at all. 5.2. Subsequent to the interview on 11.11.2021, 12.11.2021 and 14.12.2021, the appointment orders were issued vide order dated 15.12.2021, and thus, it is apparent on the face of the record that the entire selection process is completed in a fair, transparent and impartial manner, and therefore, the petitioners have no right to challenge the selection process at all. 5.2. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that during the earlier process of the examination in question, the software agency did not adopt the actual correct words in the marking system and the results were published based on the marks obtained by the candidates without proper deduction of the errors, and the marks were awarded only on the basis of correct words typed and some other discrepancies were also noticed; the actual marks can only be ascertained by applying the formula i.e. “Actual Correct Words=Total Dictated Words-Actual Committed Mistakes.” 5.2.1. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the previous result was based on the marks calculated on the basis of correct words typed, whereas in the revised result marks were calculated on the basis of actual correct words, which were ascertained by deducting the actual committed mistakes from total dictated words, and then the cut off marks went up. Therefore, as per learned Senior Counsel, after appropriately applying the aforesaid formula, the respondents revised the results, by undertaking the impugned action. 5.3. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the policy decision regarding increasing the margin of mistake from 5% to 15% was taken even before the first result was declared and the same was made applicable to the entire selection process in question. It was further submitted that the respondents found some technical issues in the evaluation and result software, while preparing the previous result dated 30.06.2021, and at that time, the aforesaid formula was not appropriately applied. 5.4. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the total dictated words in the examination in question were 420, however, in the Shift-1 on 03.04.2021, in Arya Institute of Engineering and Technology (Center Code 1001); dictation of passage started after 48 words and total 372 (420-48) words were dictated. 5.4. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the total dictated words in the examination in question were 420, however, in the Shift-1 on 03.04.2021, in Arya Institute of Engineering and Technology (Center Code 1001); dictation of passage started after 48 words and total 372 (420-48) words were dictated. In the previous result dated 30.06.2021, the speed was calculated by reckoning the maximum prescribed time as 5.19 minutes which was technically not correct, and in the revised results, the speed was calculated by reckoning the maximum prescribed time as 5.314285714 minutes and 15 % margin of mistakes regarding the 372 words was 55.80, minutes, which is technically correct. 5.5. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in the above backdrop, no right was created in favour of the petitioners because no appointment was given and no document verification was undertaken by the Appointing Authority in pursuance of the previous result. It was also submitted that as per Clause 13 Sub Clause 4 (Method of Evaluation) of the advertisement in question, the omission of words or figures etc. were stipulated to be counted as mistakes. The said clause is reproduced as hereunder-: “(4) ewY;kadu dh fof/k (Method of Evaluation): (1) The mistakes shall be counted as full or partial mistakes, as the case may be :- (a) The following should be counted as full mistakes:- (1) Omission of words of figure. (2) Substitution of wrong word or figure. (3) Misspelling. (4) Two partial mistakes will be equal to one full mistake. (b) The following should be counted as partial mistakes:- (1) Error Omission in punctuation. (2) Wrong use of capital or small letters. (3) Wrong indentation of paragraph. (2) The margin of 5% mistakes may be allowed. If the mistakes/omissions are more than 5% of the dictated passage, the excess number of mistakes over 5% shall be deducted from the total number or words dictated and the speed will be calculated.” 5.6. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the aforesaid formula is uniformly applicable in the previous recruitment as well as present recruitment, and shall be continued to be applicable in future recruitment also, and therefore, there is no illegality and no arbitrariness in the impugned actions of the respondents in declaring the revised results in question. 5.7. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:- (a) Ashok Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Bihar & Ors. 5.7. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:- (a) Ashok Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Bihar & Ors. (2017) 4 SCC 357 ; (b) Secy. (Health), Deptt. Of Health and F.W. & Ors. Vs Anita Puri & Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 282 ; (c) Prabodh Verma & Ors. Vs State of UP & Ors. (1984) 4 SCC 251 ; 6. In their rejoinder arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners preferred the instant petitions before publication of the final revised results and the Hon’ble Court has ordered that the such final results will be subject to the outcome of the writ petitions, and therefore, the respondents’ action is not justified on this count alone. 6.1. It was further submitted that when the mistakes were considered in revised results, then the cut off marks must have decreased and not enhanced. It was also submitted that the formula of ascertaining the correct words was neither mentioned in the advertisement in question nor the same was mentioned in the amended/revised results. 6.2. It was also submitted that as per Rule 10 of the Rajasthan District Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986, the candidates must qualify for minimum speed of stenography, only then he or she can be declared eligible for the further process of examination. Therefore, as per learned counsel, the action of the respondents not only lead to giving undue benefit to the less meritorious candidates, but also resulted into issuance of the wrong results. 6.3. It was further submitted that the respondents in reply itself stated that in Arya Institute of Engineering and Technology (Center Code 1002), dictation of passage was started after 97 words (total words to be dictated were 420) and that till the end, in total, the dictation was continued only upto 108 words, which clearly confused the candidates and the respondents created irregularity during the examination in question. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 8. This Court observes that the respondents issued a detailed advertisement dated 18.01.2020 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for direct recruitment on the post of Stenographer Grade-III (Hindi/English) under the establishment of the District Courts, Legal Services Authorities and Permanent Lok Adalats in the State. 8. This Court observes that the respondents issued a detailed advertisement dated 18.01.2020 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for direct recruitment on the post of Stenographer Grade-III (Hindi/English) under the establishment of the District Courts, Legal Services Authorities and Permanent Lok Adalats in the State. The petitioners submitted the application form and participated in the recruitment process (Shorthand test and Computer test) which was held between 03.04.2021 and 08.04.2021; thereafter, the respondents declared the results on 30.06.2021, whereby the petitioners were declared provisionally qualified for the interview. 8.1. Subsequently, the respondents issued notice for interview of the provisionally qualified candidates in the two slots and thereafter, the respondents declared results vide notice dated 30.06.2021 and final results on 31.07.2021. 8.2. Aggrieved of the aforesaid results, certain candidates filed the aforesaid Writ petition before the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court, whereupon, the Hon’ble Court vide order dated 25.10.2021 disposed of the petition without going into the merits of the case, as mentioned above. Subsequently, the respondents vide impugned order dated 28.10.2021 cancelled the previous results. 9. Thereafter, the respondents vide impugned notice dated 30.10.2021, issued schedule of the interview for the candidates declared selected in the revised results, and thereafter, owing to the additional requirement of the stenographers, additional 60 candidates were called for the interview on 14.12.2021 and revised final results were declared vide the impugned order dated 15.12.2021 and the appointment orders were accordingly issued. 10. This Court observes that previously, the respondents declared the results, but thereafter it was found that the proper prescribed formula of evaluation of the answer sheet of the candidates could not be applied due to some technical errors in the evaluation software. The said formula is reproduced as hereunder:- “ Speed= Actual correct words typed + Permissible 5% mistakes or actual committed mistakes (whichever is less) ÷ Duration of dictation (6 minutes) Marks = Actual Correct Words typed x Max. Marks (100) ÷ Total dictated words Actual Correct Words = Total dictated words – actual committed mistakes” 10.1. This Court further observes that the policy decision regarding the enhancement of margin of mistakes from 5% to 15% was taken before the first result and it was applicable to all candidates uniformly, and therefore, there is no illegality in the said decision which is taken by the respondents. 11. This Court further observes that the policy decision regarding the enhancement of margin of mistakes from 5% to 15% was taken before the first result and it was applicable to all candidates uniformly, and therefore, there is no illegality in the said decision which is taken by the respondents. 11. This Court also observes that the total dictated words were 420 and the formula was Actual Correct Words=Total Dictated Words-Actual Committed Mistakes. This Court further observes that due to errors in the software, the marks were awarded in previous process, only on the basis of the correct words typed instead of the actual correct words. 11.1. For better understanding, the results of some candidates as reproduced in the reply of the respondents reads as under:- PREVIOUS RESULT As per results 30.06.2021 & 31.07.2021 Roll No. Correct Words typed Actual committed mistake Speed Marks Remarks 25595 389 34.5 70.583 92.619 Selected 35868 371 50 70.167 88.333 Selected 39245 361 61 70.333 85.952 Selected 27522 357 65 70 85 Selected 38478 364 65 71.167 86.667 Selected 37319 403 17.5 70.083 95.952 Ranked 1 st 33371 406 11 69.5 96.667 Failed 17868 404 11.5 69.25 96.19 Failed 38516 403 13 69.3 95.952 Failed REVISED RESULT As per results dated 28.10.2021 & 15.12.2021 Roll No. Correct Words typed Actual committed mistake Actual correct words Speed Marks Remarks 25595 389 34.5 385.5 70 91.786 Not Selected 35868 371 50 370 70 88.095 Not Selected 39245 361 61 359 70 85.476 Not Selected 27522 357 65 355 69.667 84.524 Failed 38478 364 65 355 69.667 84.524 Failed 37319 403 17.5 402.5 70 95.833 Ranked 36 th 33371 406 11 409 70 97.381 Ranked 1 st 17868 404 11.5 408.5 70 97.262 Ranked 2 nd 38516 403 403 407 70 96.905 Ranked 3rd 11.2. For more better understanding, this Court takes one example from the aforesaid table, which is Roll No. 25595; the total of 420 words were dictated to the candidate and the actual correct words typed were 385.5 and the actual mistake committed were 34.5 (385.5+34.5=420 words) as per the formula which is applied by the respondents in the revised results; and in second column of the aforesaid, is the previous result, Correct Words Typed were 389 (389+34.5= 423.5), which clearly shows that in the previous results, the formula was not correctly applied and the same was reflected in the aforesaid table as well as aforesid example. 12. This Court also observes that in some of the institutions/examination centres, in some shifts of the examination in question, dictation of words was started later on, and that complete dictation of 420 words was also not given. This Court also noticed that though certain candidates were given lesser time for transcribing the dictation, but at the same time, the words dictated to them were also lesser in the same proportion, thus, maintaining uniformity as regards all the candidates in the examination in question. 13. This Court further observes that the aforementioned formula for evaluation of the answer sheet of the candidates is in vogue even before the present recruitment and also in the subsequent recruitment processes of the stenographer. However, in the previous results, in this recruitment the formula could not be applied due to technical reasons, and when the respondents found such errors, they revised results, after proper application of the formula, which is justified in law. 14. This Court also observes that in the previous process, the respondents did not issue any appointment order and no verification of documents of the candidates was undetaken, and therefore, the joining on the post in question does not arise at all. Thereafter, the respondents revised the results vide impugned orders and issued the appointment orders to the selected candidates in the year 2021 and all the selected candidates upon their joining, are working at the respective place for last more than two years and the said candidates are not even party in the present petitions. 15. Thereafter, the respondents revised the results vide impugned orders and issued the appointment orders to the selected candidates in the year 2021 and all the selected candidates upon their joining, are working at the respective place for last more than two years and the said candidates are not even party in the present petitions. 15. This Court further observes that no right has been created in favour of the petitioners, because the previous result itself does not stand due to non-application of the computation formula in an appropriate manner, which is critical to the evaluation of the answer sheet of the candidates. 16. This Court also observes that for the purpose of public employment, it is necessary to select the meritorious candidates and it is very important to apply the proper formula and select the candidates who secured the higher marks, and therefore, in absence of application of the prescribed formula, due to technical error in the evaluation software, the action taken by the respondents in declaring revised results is justified, and the same also protected the rights of the meritorious candidates as provided under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 17. This Court further observes that the respondents rectified the mistakes by way of the revised results which is the sole option available to them, because for the purpose of recruitment in question, the requirement of candidates cannot come in the way of detecting the technical errors and taking follow up action i.e. revision of results, which has been duly done by the respondents in the present case by properly applying the prescribed formulation for evaluation of the answer sheet of the candidates. The said exercise of the respondents does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness. 18. This Court further observes that the aforementioned formula in not a new one, which was made applicable for the first time by the respondents, as it was made applicable in the recruitment processes in the past as well and has been made applicable in the subsequent recruitment processes also. Thus, on that count also, the impugned action of the respondents is justified in law. 19. Thus, on that count also, the impugned action of the respondents is justified in law. 19. This Court also observes that the prescribed formula so applied was not mentioned in the advertisement but it is not a case of changing the rules of the game, because in the selection process in question the prescribed formula was in vogue even before issuance of the advertisement in question, and the same has remained applicable for the subsequent selection processes as well. Therefore, the entire selection process is faultless, without any illegality and the formula has been applied uniformly for all the candidates, irrespective of whether the same has been mentioned in the advertisement or not. Moreover, the aforesaid prescribed formula is part of the method of evaluation, and not the method of recruitment, and method of recruitment has been duly mentioned in the advertisement. This Court further observes that the respondents revised the results to ensure the transparency, and for the said purpose, amongst others, the prescribed and uniform formula for evaluation has been applied. 20. The judgments cited on the behalf of the petitioners do not rendered any assistance to their case. 21. Thus, in light of the above observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioners in the present petitions. 22. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of. RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI, J. 1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment prepared by my learned brother Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and I am in complete and respectful agreement with him. However, having regard to the importance of the issue involved, I deem it appropriate to pen down few of my own views to supplement the reasoning, in addition to the opinion of my brother Judge. 2. The task of preparing result was given to an outsourced technical agency which was well within jurisdiction of respondent recruiting authority. A computer program, based on the “method of evaluation” to prepare the results was created by the agency itself. The agency was expected to prepare computer programme by correctly applying the “method of evaluation”, as determined by the recruiting authority. 3. A computer program, based on the “method of evaluation” to prepare the results was created by the agency itself. The agency was expected to prepare computer programme by correctly applying the “method of evaluation”, as determined by the recruiting authority. 3. When representations were received by the respondent after declaration of the first result dated 31.07.2021, raising issue of technical deficiencies in computerized evaluation programme and writ petitions were also filed, in such a situation, it was necessary and expedient for the respondents to examine the way the computerized evaluation was worked-out and it processed the evaluation of shorthand answer sheets. It was justified on the part of the respondents to do so, as the respondents could not have turned a blind eye to the objections raised. 4. Upon examining the computerized evaluation programme, it was found that due to inadvertence, “the mistakes” were deducted from the total words typed by the candidate, instead of from “total words dictated”. The agency did not account for mistakes properly. Due to this, the “evaluation method” could not be applied correctly as notified in recruitment advertisement. In the light of various representations received, competent authority revisited the assessment made by the agency and decided to rectify technical errors. 5. In my view, the respondent typically had the right to rectify errors found in results which was found to have been committed by a third party i.e. the agency. Ensuring the accuracy of result was crucial for correctness, fairness and integrity in the recruitment process. The purpose of rectifying the mistakes was to ensure that candidates receive the merit they rightfully earned and that their achievements are accurately reflected. Rectifying the mistakes demonstrates respondents’ commitment to transparency and accountability as respondents were accountable for the accuracy of candidates’ assessment. It shows that the respondent took the concern seriously and was willing to take appropriate actions to address them. This was also essential for upholding the credibility, fairness and trustworthiness of recruitment process. 6. In such a situation, the revision of result had become inevitable and same has been done redressing the grievances of the persons concerned. The results were declared finally after correcting the errors to ensure an error free result. Neither the method of evaluation was changed nor the norms of selections were altered in the midst of the selection process. 7. In such a situation, the revision of result had become inevitable and same has been done redressing the grievances of the persons concerned. The results were declared finally after correcting the errors to ensure an error free result. Neither the method of evaluation was changed nor the norms of selections were altered in the midst of the selection process. 7. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that revision of result could not have been applied for the current recruitment or it was a case changing the rules of the race once the race had commenced, does not hold water. 8. Now question arises whether a wrongly selected person has the right to get an appointment? When the evaluation method upon which the selection of candidates was to be based, could not be applied correctly due to technical reasons, then the selection based on an incorrect evaluation could not be materialised, nor could the individuals selected in error have any legal rights. 9. The main question for consideration is whether a legitimate expectation has arisen due to the revision of the result by the respondent, whether it is a matter of change of evaluation method and if so, what remedy can be granted to the petitioners for breach of such expectation. In my view, if a candidate has been wrongly selected for a position and the selection was made in violation of prescribed norms, the wrongly selected person has no legal right to the appointment. Such selection process does not confirm any right to any candidate for getting an appointment. 10. I am clearly of the view that beneficiaries of a wrong selection process lack the legal right to challenge a subsequent correct selection process as they do not acquire any prescriptive right to be appointed on a particular post and therefore, revision of the result by the respondents would not confer the petitioners any right to challenge the selection process. In such a situation, if a new result has been declared after correcting the technical errors in the evaluation process then no irregularity or illegality can be challenged. 11. The scheme, syllabus, and method of evaluation of the examination were clearly outlined in the advertisement dated 18.01.2020. Having knowledge of these details, the petitioner participated in the examination, therefore, after failing in the examination, the petitioners have no right to challenge the method of evaluation. 12. 11. The scheme, syllabus, and method of evaluation of the examination were clearly outlined in the advertisement dated 18.01.2020. Having knowledge of these details, the petitioner participated in the examination, therefore, after failing in the examination, the petitioners have no right to challenge the method of evaluation. 12. The salient features of the scheme of examination and method of evaluation was as follows:- A. The short-hand test was of 6 minutes duration, during which the speed of dictation in English language was 80 words per minute, resulting in a total of 480 words dictation to be given by the examiner. Candidates were expected to type this dictation within 50 minutes. B. A total of 6 types of mistakes were enumerated as follows:- (i) Omission of words or figures (ii) Substitution of wrong words or figures (iii) Misspelling (iv) Error or omission in punctuation (v) Wrong use of capital or small letters (vi) Wrong indention of paragraphs C. Margin of 5% mistakes were allowed which was later increased to 15% D. Mistakes were to be deducted from the total number of the words dictated. 13. It is true that no distinct formula for the evaluation of the short-hand test was mentioned in the advertisement. However, the method of evaluation was clear in the description of the evaluation method itself. The fact of deducing mistakes from the total “words dictated” was made clear in the advertisement itself. 14. In such a situation, after deducting the “total number of mistakes committed” from the “total words dictated”, the words remaining constitute the "total correctly typed words" by the candidate. The shorthand paper was of 100 marks. In this case, dividing the total number of “correctly typed words” by the total number of “words dictated” and multiply it by 100, gives the candidates “marks obtained”, and this could have been the only way to calculate the marks of short-hand test. 15. The correctness of subtracting “mistakes committed” from the “words dictated” has been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 16. For better appreciation, this can be understood through two illustrations. 17. First, in English, if a candidate types all the 480 words within the prescribed period of 50 minutes and makes “zero” mistakes, then his total number of “correctly typed words” will be 480, and in this case, he will be said to have scored 100% marks. 18. 16. For better appreciation, this can be understood through two illustrations. 17. First, in English, if a candidate types all the 480 words within the prescribed period of 50 minutes and makes “zero” mistakes, then his total number of “correctly typed words” will be 480, and in this case, he will be said to have scored 100% marks. 18. Second, if a candidate types 460 out of 480 words in the prescribed 50-minutes duration for typing and he also commits “zero” mistakes, then the total number of “correctly typed words” will be 460. In this scenario, it cannot be said that he has scored 100%, because “Omission” is also a mistake and he has committed 20 “omission” mistakes. In this situation, he will be said to have earned 95.83% marks although all the words he typed were correct. This is why “total words dictated” was made the basis of performance evaluation. 19. In the light of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the subsequently correctly implemented evaluation method came as a surprise to the petitioners. 20. The next and very important plank of the argument on behalf of the petitioners is that after giving effect of mistakes committed by the candidates, the cut off in the revised result increased, which should ideally have decreased from the earlier cut-off, owing to the negative marking that was earlier omitted due to the error of agency. 21. I am not impressed by the submissions of learned counsels for the petitioners. This is an argument which at first blush looks attractive but on closer scrutiny it is not as sound as it is attractive. It cannot be accepted for the simple reason that if we first deduct the mistakes by the number of a smaller digit (that is total words typed by the candidate) and secondly, by the number of a larger digit (that is total words dictated), the numerical result obtained from the latter process will definitely be higher than the earlier result. In this process, the marks obtained by a candidate will increase and shall not decrease. 22. This can be understood with an example. In this process, the marks obtained by a candidate will increase and shall not decrease. 22. This can be understood with an example. If a given candidate types 460 words out of the total dictated 480 words in English and makes 10 mistakes of typing, then the difference in marks obtained in the first and second result will be as follows: Particulars Ist evaluation IInd evaluation Total words dictated 480 480 Total words typed by the candidate 460 460 Total mistakes committed (20 mistakes of omissions plus 10 mistakes of typing) 30 30 Total number of correctly typed words (Note- In the first result, since 30 mistakes were subtracted from the “total typed words”, the total number of “correctly typed words” was 430. Whereas, in the second result, since 30 mistakes have been subtracted from the “total words dictated”, the total number of “correctly typed words” was 450) 430 450 Marks obtained (According to the formula for calculating percentage i.e. correctly typed words X 100 ÷ Total words dictated) 89.58 % 93.75 % 23. Due to the reasons mentioned above, increase in the cut-off marks from 89.58 % to 93.75 % was natural in the above example. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the said argument as well. 24. The decision to increase the margin of mistakes from 5% to 15% was equally applied in declaring both the results and was made effective in the context of each candidate. In this contest, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is completely baseless. This was done to increase the probability of having fill-in all the posts and avoiding possibility of posts remaining vacant so that the recruitment process could be avoided again and again. 25. It is also pertinent to mention that the recommendations made for appointment by virtue of notice dated 31.07.2021 was provisional and subject to other conditions as per the advertisement and rules, such as the verification of original documents was to be made and appointing authority was also required to comply with the procedure of Rule 23(1) of the Rajasthan District Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules. Only after fulfilling these conditions, appointment orders could have been issued in favour of the selected candidates. 26. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered view that petitioners have filed these petitions on imaginary grounds based on conjectures and surmises. Only after fulfilling these conditions, appointment orders could have been issued in favour of the selected candidates. 26. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered view that petitioners have filed these petitions on imaginary grounds based on conjectures and surmises. The rules of the game have not been changed after commencement of the game. Results have been revised on account of perfectly justifiable and valid reasons. It is not a case of cancellation of result in violation of legitimate expectations of petitioners and has thereby led to the violation of fundamental rights under article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.