1 -j-;.-„.,..„.i.;tiaMii . w s.ss.i'avai asisxa na aR¥isissar(s *('d'l asj'ioissiHg&s-.se •8a«[snia 3S1Q-S3. •(•<a*a)itaesa' swKma aa'piitjL "agioxa 38 sesssa.waa zstsaasassasfloaBs HsaaTOa- ixm'w S.Q atASd -snsdSA— SSVS^SiT • (* a*ii} wasaas' msfs^ -. ai SHTS . .ISfS».'S5".^.a<m'3-W.<K'V£ SB'R5& ^/a(1IK;nOO©'fiTO flMTO ISBS^/S'SaWZ TS S.&QSf a©T<HWBStMITS ^j'Tser s^^bs'yQ t,si/e" A c*1 &5;yh!!sv _'»yii s&,&--w-u'"'..':.:'.-.,- .!. i.. ..-.^ i*a*KT:aa<t3Ctaic.;, A»as%g.:SIHIS&IM_ ••rEEasis3.''3AXSTOiSii3KS.x •aKiiS^^Ktaa-.'t.EH.aM xs'm. -s 3 t- v\ ^^/^\ (^ :s^ n.:l 3T!t5'T?iI 'i^lR^ 3115^1 ^14^ <i[?^ ! -S^l -HjTqTcTEf, »Ti1<i'ie, (slc11'M1< _.l(^.....1.^..2.MG^ wncir a>*<i<*i aii^I'S^'IWHit? 'kl'tScl-fl-l til^rtf'^'fS^t <fatdK 3if;gi[ siit?[ SB : Hon'bte Shri Manindra Mohan Stmvastava. J. 01-0*^)10 Shri Sanjay Patel, counsel for th^ petituner. Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Adv<x;a|te for the State/respondents No.2 & 3. Heard. This petition has been filed by th^ petitioner aggrieved on account of his non selection to the post of Excise Qonstable. Case of the petitioner is that in r^sponse to an advertisement inviting application for appointment to the post drive for candidates betonging to r^ervation oategory (SC/ST), the petittoner had submitted his candidal petittoner was required to submit va( ure. In the process of selection, •tous certificates/documents which were duly submitted and then petitu(ier was oalled for interview. The petitioner reasonably hoped to be seleci examination as well as in the irterview. assured by respondent No.2 ttiat petitit>ner woukl be i^ued appointment order very shortly. When the petitioner fij)und that he has not been selected, a representatbn was preferred. On the other hand, case of tlfie respondent is that petitioner's candklature was duly considered and tt(e petitioner secured only 32 marks whereas candyates, who were select^d, secured higher marks than the petittoner. Learned counsel for the p^itione irregularity in the process of selectton qxcept what has been stated in the petitton. No specific grounds have of Excise Constable under special ;ed as he had performed well in the According to the petitioner, he was could not point out any illegality or been averred in the petition. -.- - .-1. ^::.-—--^^ r ^^ '"fc 's .? & i.,f ''l;^tj:.,.,..~~**n: *t!a;s 3nt?i^! R'TRi'SIIS^I TIT^T yi?d Tumane ^^ ^itiid^, dTfl'y'iia, reidi'yli< in^?ii »iiirai _U?.,.l.l£-J...^;.laT/a "(nj 2 3n^i-g^!iw(rf??r -t- ^i|*ti<rl4t'1 HW^ ^ [^<<rt <i^1 R '^sri^raan^' Moreover, what has been stated by t(ie respmdents in the retum has not been controverted. In thfe view pf the matter, 1 do r^ot flnd any iltegality in theprocess of selection so as to warrant interference bythteCourt. Accordingly, the petitfon is disnlissed. Sd/- ;. Manindra Mohan Shrhrastava; Judge [ ..-.-^