JUDGMENT : Sameer Jain, J. 1. Considering the identical factual narrative and legal issues involved, with consent of all the parties, the present bunch of petitions is adjudicated vide this common judgment which shall be applicable on mutatis mutandis basis. With consent of the counsel representing various parties, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2416/2025 is taken as the lead petition. 2. In bunch of the matters, it is noted that an advertisement dated 13.02.2024 was issued inviting applications for the post of LDC-II/Junior Assistant, by the respondent No.2, wherein, total 4197 seats were advertised i.e., 584 seats for LDC-II in Secretariat, 61 seats for LDC grade II in RPSC and 3552 seats for the post of Junior Assistant in Rajasthan Subordinate Offices. 3. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for the said posts examination comprising of total 300 marks was conducted in two phases i.e. written examination and Efficiency test including typing test in both language scripts i.e. English and Hindi (Devnagri). 4. Further, it is submitted that on account of some technical glitch and other problems faced during the typing test, for instance non- functionality of the computer mouse, answers were not saved successfully etc., a few of the candidates were unable to qualify the said examination, therefore, due to the inaction of the respondents in not resolving the technical problems that arose during the examination, the present petitions are filed. 5. Furthermore, it is submitted that the analysis and observations made by the Screening Committee and the Experts are illusionary, cryptic and non-speaking, therefore, the grievance of the petitioners remain unanswered, thus respondents be directed to re-conduct the said examination. In support of the said contention, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.497/2023 titled as Disha Sharma vs. Senior Director (Exams), National Testing Agency & Another and Vaishant Vijay Bhopale & Anr. vs. NTA & Ors. in Writ Petition No.6042 of 2021. 6. Further, learned counsel for the petitioners has apprised this Court that the said examination was conducted under surveillance of CCTV, therefore, the record of the same should be furnished before this Court by the respondents for efficacious adjudication of the matter. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has raised preliminary objection qua the maintainability of the petitions and has submitted that the petitions filed by the petitioners/candidates are devoid of any merit. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has raised preliminary objection qua the maintainability of the petitions and has submitted that the petitions filed by the petitioners/candidates are devoid of any merit. It is further submitted that out of approximately 11704 eligible candidates, approximately 8500 candidates appeared in the said examination, which was conducted during a span of four days. 8. Further, it is submitted that the present petition is filed as an afterthought, as the petitioners who have approached this Court are the candidates (approximately 50 candidates) who have not qualified the examination, therefore, on account of being ineligible in the said examination, the said grievance is raised at a latter stage. 9. Additionally, it is submitted that the respondents have formulated a Screening Committee consisting of five members under the Chairmanship of one Senior Professor Shri Ram Singh Meena to resolve the said grievance of the candidates/petitioners. It is further submitted that the Screening Committee has sought an expert opinion and after due evaluation and consideration of the petitioners’ grievances has given an appropriate observation/report. The said report of the Screening Committee is placed on record before the Court. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents has assured this Court to send and communicate the report/observations of the Screening Committee along with reasonable explanation and justifications to the respective petitioners to adjudicate their grievance, within a period of 15 days, from the date of passing of this order. 11. Lastly, it is submitted that the prayer of the petitioners for re- conduct of examination cannot be considered, for the reason that large number of candidates have appeared in the examination and it would not be practically possible for the respondents to do the same. 12. Heard and considered. 13. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, upon perusal of the records, taking note of the judgments cited at the Bar, this Court has made the following observations:- 13.1 That the advertisement dated 13.02.2024/direct recruitment-2024 was issued for the posts of LDC-II/Junior Assistant, wherein, 4197 seats were advertised. 13.2 That the grievances raised by approximately 50 petitioners is pertaining to the typing test, during which various technical glitches and shortcomings arose. 13.2 That the grievances raised by approximately 50 petitioners is pertaining to the typing test, during which various technical glitches and shortcomings arose. 13.3 That in this regard, the respondents have formulated a Screening Committee with the aid and advise of technical experts and after due analysis and evaluation qua each and every grievance of the candidates, a report is submitted/formulated. 13.4 That the instant dispute needs expert evaluation which is duly done during evaluation by the Screening Committee, and Court is not an expert in the said field, therefore, the opinion or observation made by the technical expert is considered to be true and appropriate. 13.5 That enormous number of candidates have appeared in the typing test i.e. approximately 8,500, and grievances is raised only by non-meritorious candidates, who are approximately 50 in number. 14. Taking note of the aforestated, this Court directs the respondents to send and communicate the report/ observations of the Screening Committee in a detailed manner along with reasonable justifications and reasoning, within a period of 15 days from the date of passing of this order. It is made clear that the said communication should be made by way of a speaking order. 15. Further, petitioners are at liberty to approach appropriate forum, if their grievance still survives. 16. In light of the above, the instant petitions are disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed.