1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.1685/2004 RAJENDRA SINGH NAYAK V/s THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & Ors. DATE OF ORDER :::: MAY 8th, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri Tarun Choudhary on behalf of Shri Hanuman Choudhary, for the petitioner. Dr. M.S. Kachhawa, Addl. Govt. counsel. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the final arguments heard. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission issued an advertisement dated 5.11.2001 advertising for the posts of Sub Inspector (Police). The petitioner also applied for the said post. He was declared passed in written examination. Thereafter, he was called for physical efficiency test in which he appeared and the result was declared on 9.1.2004. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the fact that he was declared successful in the result, he was not called for interview for the above post. Therefore, a suitable direction is required to be issued directing the 2 respondents to call the petitioner for interview for the post of Sub Inspector (Police) and to appoint him, if he is otherwise found suitable. A notice to show cause was given to the respondents and in response thereto, they have filed reply to the writ petition wherein it has been mentioned that in response to the advertisement dated 5.11.2001, the respondents received total 96,522 application forms including 36,684 application forms of earlier advertisement dated 6.3.1999. The RPSC in its meeting held on 25.6.2003, decided to call the candidates of SC & ST categories in the ratio of 1:6 of the number of vacancies and in the ratio of 1:3 of the number of vacancies of General and OBC categories for the interview on the basis of aggregate marks of written test and physical efficiency test. The petitioner, as per his merit, did not come within the list of candidates to be called for interview as he secured lessor marks than the cut off marks fixed in the S.C. category, therefore, he was not called for interview. The reply was filed way back on 28.7.2004 and till date, no rejoinder has 3 been filed on behalf of the petitioner controverting the above facts of reply or stating that any less meritorious person than to the petitioner has been called for interview for the above post. During the course of arguments, a specific question was asked to the petitioner as to any less meritorious person than to the petitioner has been called for interview or not, he is unable to point out any person who is less meritorious than the petitioner, has been called for interview. In these circumstances, it is clear that no less meritorious person than the petitioner has been called for interview and given appointment from the above post and as such there is no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The action of the respondents cannot be said to be arbitrary or discriminatory. In these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the writ petition. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 4 In view of the above dismissal of the writ petition, the stay application filed therewith, also stands dismissed. (Narendra Kumar Jain),J. Chauhan/