1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6753/2003 Kumari Sangeeta v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. DATE OF ORDER :: 11 th October, 2006 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. N.R.Choudhary, for the petitioner. Mr. Shyam Ladrecha, Additional Government Advocate. .... At the first instance it is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the controversy involved in this petition for writ stands covered by judgment of this Court in the case of Sarita Gora v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., SBCivil Writ Petition No.3087/2003, i.e. decided today only. I am of the opinion that the present case cannot be dealt with by treating the same as similar to the case of Sarita Gora (supra) as this Court in the aforesaid case held that petitioner Sarita Gora being a member of Scheduled Caste is entitled to secure only 30% marks in interviews whereas the present petitioner is not the member of Scheduled Caste. Though the petitioner by this petition for writ has also challenged validity of Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1989”), but the learned counsel has not addressed the Court on that count. It is asserted by counsel for the 2 petitioner that the recruitment board while examining suitability of an incumbent for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Constable is required to consider personality, address, tact, behaviour, specialised training, aptitude for the post, judgment, leadership and knowledge of the Rajasthani culture, as such the marks under all the heads above required to be given separately but in the instant matter such demarcation is not made and even if it is made then the marks have not been disclosed to the petitioner. It is true that a broad guidelines are given under Rule 21 of the Rules of 1989 with regard to consideration of candidature of an incumbent for recruitment in Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service, however, it does not mean that separate marks are required to be given for each head. It is asserted by counsel for the petitioner that the respondents in normal course are bifurcating marks of the interviews on the heads referred above. If it is so, the respondents may supply such numbers to the petitioner, if demanded. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.