WPSS No. 378/2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala J. Mr. M.S. Pal, the learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Mr. Tarun P.S. Takuli, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. K.C. Tiwari, the learned brief holder for the State. The learned Senior Advocate has read the entire paragraphs of the writ petition and certain annexure and thereafter submitted that the petitioners having qualified in the written examination and having cleared the minimum requirement in the typing test, was entitled to be given the appointment letter on the post of lower Assistant. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is that an advertisement dated 12.11.2008 was issued inviting applications for the post of Lower Assistant. In this advertisement, the applicants were required to undergo a written test as well as a typing test. The petitioners qualified in the written test and were subsequently, invited to appear in the typing test. In the advertisement, the condition prescribed for the typing test is that a candidate should have a minimum speed of four thousand K.D.P.H. (Keys depression per hour) and 50 marks were allocated for this typing test. The petitioners contend that they succeeded in the typing test and that their speed was over four thousand K.D.P.H. and therefore, they were entitled to be given the maximum marks i.e. 50 marks, whereas, the petitioners have been given 25 marks onwards, which is arbitrary. The petitioners further contend that this information was given by the respondents under the Right to Information Act. Accordingly, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the computation of marks in the typing test was done arbitrarily and even otherwise, the petitioners having succeeded in the typing test with a minimum four thousand K.D.P.H. was entitled to be given the maximum 50 marks. The contention of the petitioners appears to be bereft o merit. As per the information given by the Right to Information Act, the court finds that the candidates who gave the minimum speed of four thousand K.D.P.H. in the typing test was allocated 25 marks and candidates, who gave a speed of more than four thousand K.D.P.H. was accordingly given more than 25 marks and in this manner the person who gave the maximum speed in the typing test was given the maximum marks of 50 marks. In my opinion, the criteria adopted by the respondents was perfectly fair and was neither arbitrary nor was in violation of the condition motioned in the advertisement. The advertisement did not mention that a person who gave a minimum speed of four thousand K.D.P.H. in the typing test would be given the maximum marks of 50. In view of the aforesaid, the court does not find any error in the selection process conducted by the respondents. The writ petition is dismissed summarily. Dated : 31.5.2010 (Tarun Agarwala,J.) Nishant