CW 2634/06 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.2634/2006 Vikram Singh Versus State & (3) Ors Date of Order ::: 11/12/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. SK Singh, for petitioner Mr. Mahesh Gupta, Addl.Govt. Counsel for respondent-State Instant petition has been filed claiming his consideration as Ex-serviceman for the post of Constable in police department pursuant to advertisement dt.14/06/05. Basic grievance raised by petitioner is that being ex-serviceman despite there being reservation provided under advertisement (Ann.3), his candidature has not been considered against such vacancies reserved and this is an apparent error which the respondents committed in adjudging his suitability for the post of police constable pursuant to advertisement (Ann.3). In the reply, respondents inter-alia averred that petitioner had participated in the process of selection (written examination as well as physical fitness test) initiated pursuant to advertisement (Ann.3) but failed to secure minimum qualifying marks in the interview – in the absence whereof, he could not be finally selected for the post of police constable (Operator). CW 2634/06 //2// Post of constable (Operator) is included in Schedule appended to Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (”Rules, 1989”) and as per R.23, for all category other than SC/ST, the Commission/Committee shall not recommend candidates who have secured less than 36% marks in interview and 45% marks in the aggregate but there is relaxation for members of SC/ST who have secured 30% marks in interview and 40% marks in the aggregate and who are considered suitable; and they can be recommended by competent authority under the Scheme of Rules, 1989. As regards petitioner herein, he applied for in general category against vacancy reserved for ex-serviceman and since failed to secure minimum 36% marks in the interview and 45% marks in the aggregate, which makes him in-eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Constable (Operator) pursuant to advertisement (Ann.3). The question raised by petitioner that he has to be considered for vacancy against reserved category of ex-serviceman is not of legal consequence. Since he failed to qualify minimum standards laid down U/r 23 of Rules, 1989. Consequently writ petition is devoid of merit, and accordingly dismissed. No costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p2/2634CW06-1112.doc