SBCWP NO.4013/2004. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4013/2004. Heetendra Singh Vs. State and ors. Date of Order : September 24, 2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ None present for the petitioner. Shri S.N. Kumawat, for the respondents. **** BY THE COURT : Heard learned counsel for the respondents. 2) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the grievance that respondents may be directed to call the petitioner for interview for the post of Sub Inspector of Police scheduled to take place on 26/6/2004 on the basis of marks obtained by him in written test and if he found suitable, appoint him on the post of Sub Inspector of Police from the date less meritorious persons were appointed. 3) Argument of the petitioner is that respondents have not correctly construed para 7(b) of Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (for short, "Rules of 1989") which inter- alia provides that marks awarded in aptitude test and interview shall be added to the marks obtained in the written test for preparation of final merit. This SBCWP NO.4013/2004. 2 resulted in less meritorious candidates being called for interview and candidates like petitioner being deprived. The petitioner has secured qualifying marks in the physical proficiency test minimum requirement of which is only 50%. 4) Respondents have contested the writ petition and have submitted that according to proviso second to Rule 21(6) of the Rules of 1989, candidates, only three times of number of vacancies, were decided to be called for interview and since the marks secured by the petitioner in written as well as physical were only 278 before interview, he could not be called for interview as last candidate who was called for interview was having 366 marks. Petitioner could not be subjected to aptitude because his name could not figure within the candidates who were called for interview only three times the available number of posts, who secured requisite marks in written and physical. In view of the clarification made by the respondents, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Same is accordingly dismissed. Copy of this order be endorsed to the petitioner for information. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil