IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1645/2002 Abdul Saleem & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of order : 1/12/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Kamal Kant Sharma for the petitioners. Shri Hemant Gupta, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents. ****** Heard learned counsel for the parties. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioners in the year 2002 with the prayer that the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioners on the post of Lab. Technician pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.10.2001. Shri Kamal Kant, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that less meritorious candidates have been appointed and that in spite of the fact that the petitioners are more meritorious, their candidature has been ignored. It was argued that petitioner no.1 Abdul Saleem secured 85.25% marks in secondary examination, petitioner no.2 Gulzar Hussain secured 79.27% and petitioner no.3 Vaidyanath Sharma secured 80.72% marks, whereas the respondents have appointed candidates having lesser merit. It is argued that the source of recruitment for the appointment on this post is 100% by direct recruitment and the educational qualification which is required for the post is secondary school or its equivalent with training recognised by the Government. The merit list was required to be prepared merely on the basis of the marks secured in secondary examination, however, the merit list was prepared by the respondents on the basis of average marks of secondary examination and the training course. Shri Hemant Gupta, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that since the requirement of Rule is that the candidate should possess both qualifying namely secondary school and also the training course, therefore, as per the said requirement, the merit list was prepared by the respondents on the basis of average / mean of the marks secured in both these disqualifications. It was argued that the merit list so prepared does not indicate that any candidate lower than the petitioner in merit has secured appointment. Learned counsel argued that in any case the selection process was completed in the year 2001 itself and none of the selected candidates, whose appointment are going to be effected, if the writ petition is allowed, has been impleaded as party respondents. When the Rules require the qualification of not only secondary school examination but also of the training qualification, the action of the respondents in preparing merit list on the basis of average marks secured in both of them cannot be said to be contrary to the Rules. The reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents as far as back in 2003 and the petitioner did not even seek to challenge the criteria for preparation of the merit list, nor did they took a step to implead those who were appointed and were going to be effected by the outcome of the present writ petition. A similar writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1867/02, Adarsh Kishore vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. was also dismissed by this Court on consideration of the aforesaid arguments on 24.11.2008. In view of above, no case is made out for interference. The writ petition is dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/