1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER Ms.Ayushmati Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6281/2006 Date of Order : : 27/09/2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr.Lalit Purohit, for the petitioner. Mr.Tarun Joshi, for the respondent. BY THE COURT: By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks direction to the respondent to select her on the post of Lecturer (School Education) in subject English and include her name in the select merit list. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent-RPSC. By Annexure-5 dated 18th August, 2004, the respondent-RPSC advertised certain posts for the Lecturer 2 (School Education). The petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer (School Education) in English subject. The petitioner was declared unsuccessful by holding a process of selection. It has been stated in the reply that total 27 posts were advertised for Scheduled Caste Woman candidates and in response thereto, 66 candidates have applied for the said posts which were reserved for Scheduled Caste Woman Category. Out of 66 candidates, 32 candidates were called for interview and 8 candidates remained absent. It has further been stated that out of 24 candidates, who were appeared in the interview, only 14 candidates were found suitable, who secured minimum qualifying marks. As many as 10 persons including the petitioner have not been found suitable for the post as they did not secure the minimum qualifying marks and accordingly, the merit list was prepared and published. So far as unfilled posts are considered, learned counsel appearing for the respondent RPSC submits that they were carried forward. Learned counsel also submits that as to whether in subsequent year, unfilled posts are being advertised or not, it is only for the State Government but since in the instant case, the State of Rajasthan has not been impleaded as party respondent, therefore, it cannot be said that in subsequent years as to whether the State Government are advertising the 3 posts or not. Be that as it may, as is evident from the reply, the name for the petitioner could not be included in the select list as she could not secured minimum qualifying marks in interview. In my view, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief since she did not qualify in interview. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is, dismissed. No order as to costs. Stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. NK