1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL WRIT No. 7894 of 2008 MUKUL SHASTRY V/S STATE & ORS Mr. SUKESH BHATI, for the petitioner Date of Order : 22.10.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI,J. ORDER ----- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. The controversy involved, as has been raised in this writ petition, has already been decided by Division Bench of this Court in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2945/2004, M.S.Rajpurohit & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors. decided on 3.5.2006, The judgment of the Division Bench has been produced by the petitioner as Annexure-9, wherein at page 6, the Division Bench has held as under: “It is true that Schedule III does not specify the subject except to mention that the papers are designed to test the practical knowledge of 2 the candidates in civil law and criminal law, and the procedure e.g. drafting, pleading, framing issues and writing judgments etc. But if the exact subjects or branch of civil or criminal laws have not been specified in the Schedule III or the advertisement, that is so for all the candidates. It is to be kept in mind that the examination is not a qualifying examination but a competitive examination. Success of the candidate depends on the marks secured by him vis-a-vis other candidates. Candidates are to be chosen for interview on the basis f marks secured by them. Depending on the number of vacancies and the ratio for Viva Voce test, a merit list is required to be prepared on the basis of marks and the candidates are accordingly called. If the syllabus is vague and the subjects/branch are not specified, the examination being the same, for all the candidates, the petitioners cannot make any grievance. Examinations have been held in the past on the basis of same recruitment rules and syllabus. Only a handful of candidates have made grievance. As is some times said, it is only in adverse situations that one can show his mettle, and talent can be identified. If without knowing the specific subject/branches of law the candidates at large took the examination, and successful candidates outclassed others in the past, in the previous examinations, no case apparently is made out for any direction on judicial side.” In that view of the matter, we do not find any ground 3 to quash the notification of RJS Examination. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed summarily. ( KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /m.asif/