1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1532/2005 (Mukesh Trivedi & ors. Vs. State & anr.) Date of Order :: 16th July 2007 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.P.S.Bhati for the petitioners Mr.S.M.Toshniwal for Mr.N.M.Lodha, AAG Mr.Tarun Joshi for the respondent BY THE COURT: Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is clearly of opinion that this writ petition remains bereft of substance and does not merit admission. It appears from the averments taken in the petition that in response to the advertisement dated 02.06.2004 (Annex.1) for Primary Teacher Examination-2004, the petitioners considering themselves eligible and qualified offered their candidature; and appeared in the examination conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission ('RPSC'); but could not succeed. After declaration of the result, the petitioners made representation questioning the cut-off marks provided by the respondents particularly in relation to the reserved category candidates; and secondly questioning the procedure adopted by the respondents in seeking to fill up backlog of reserved category vacancies. While relying on a newspaper 2 report putting a question mark on the proposition of reservation, and while suggesting that backlog of reserved posts be filled up in phased manner, the petitioners have filed this writ petition on 15.03.2005 seeking the reliefs that the respondents may be directed to increase the number of seats for the post of Teacher Gr.III for general category by reducing the backlog reserved seats; and to re-determine the merit and give appointment only to those candidates in reserved category who have otherwise obtained minimum 50% of qualifying marks and in case of non-availability of such candidates, the vacant seats may be filled by general category candidates. Apart that the petitioners have not shown violation of any statutory provision by the respondents, the fact remains that the advertisement in question was issued as back as on 02.06.2004 and the petitioners were aware of all its contents including the number of reserved seats and their distribution, district-wise and category-wise. The petitioners took their chance and appeared in the selection test held in pursuance of said advertisement. The respondents have pointed out that the result was declared in first week of January 2005. Obviously, the petitioners have filed this petition in the month of March 2005 only after having been unsuccessful in the selection test they consciously took without raising any 3 question. The petitioners do not appear justified in seeking to question the selection process only after they had consciously taken their chance and could not stand in merit. This is apart from the fact that the respondents have clarified in their reply the exercise undertaken by them in bifurcating the vacancies in relation to different reserved categories. The writ petition remains meritless and is, therefore, dismissed. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. MK