Judgment Lalit Mohan Sharma, J. 1. The question involved in this case as formulated by the petitioners in paragraph 2 of the writ application, is whether the two petitioners, who are candidates for appointment as Gazetted Officers of the State and were allowed to take part in the combined explanation held for that purpose should have been selected by the Public Service Commission as successful candidates. The ground urged is that "a large number of fake candidates have been included in the list of the successful candidates selected at the written Test as a result of which the petitioners are illegally excluded. 2. According to the provisions of the Bihar Civil Service (Executive Branch) and the Junior Civil Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1952, the initial selection is made on the basis of a written Test carrying 850 marks. The selected candidates were thereafter interviewed for Personality Test carrying 100 marks. The final selection was made on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained by them. Rule 16 (a) provides for fixation of qualifying marks at the Written Test and, as has been stated on behalf of the Commission, the qualifying marks in the Written Test in the I resent case were fixed at 59%. The petitioners haying secured only 53% and 30% marks respectively at the said examination were not called for interview. 3. It has been asserted in the writ application that at the time of publication in the newspapers of the programme of the examination, it appeared that there were altogether 46958 candidates only. Reliance has been placed on the advertisement appearing in a daily newspaper. Subsequently, when the list of successful candidates at the Written Test was published, it included 78 additional roll numbers detailed in paragraph 6 of the writ application and it is said that 17 out of them mentioned in paragraph 8 were finally selected and appointed. It is contended that if the initial publication is to be believed, it must be held that these persons were not candidates at all and were later smuggled in as a result of which the petitioners could not be selected for interview. It has been further averred in paragraph 9 of the writ application that six other candidates were not in the list of the successful candidates at the written examination at all. It has been further averred in paragraph 9 of the writ application that six other candidates were not in the list of the successful candidates at the written examination at all. Still another irregularity has been mentioned by saying that "there was duplication and triplication and even more of some Roll numbers selected for interview". 4. Affidavits have been filed on behalf of the Commission denying the allegations about "fake candidates" and explaining the circumstances resulting in some confusion in the roll numbers. Although the competitive examination in question was decided to be held for filling up only 365 vacant posts, more than 47000 candidates applied. As the number of members of the staff of the Commission is limited, it was not possible to get the verification of the applications manually without delay and with a view to expedite the matter, it was decided to take the help of computer service. This decision was taken for the first time and on account of lack of experience, it was not fully successful inasmuch as a large number of genuine candidates who had applied in time were wrongly excluded from the list. In accordance with the Note appended to the examination programme enabling such candidates to press their candidatures, a large number of objections were received. After proper verification, the candidates who had already duly applied in time and were entitled to be considered at the tests were allotted additional roll numbers. It has been asserted that record of these cases has been maintained and can be produced if so directed. The entire process in this regard has been detailed in the affidavits leading to the allotment of additional roll numbers. In paragraphs 5 to 8 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 3 and 4, on 10-11-86 (at pages 34 to 43 of the records) and paragraphs 2 to 7 of the supplementary affidavit filed on 19-3-87, the other allegations in the writ application have also been refuted. 5. The respondents have further pointed out that since the petitioners failed to obtain the qualifying marks fixed for selection for interview and since there are a large number of other candidates who have obtained higher marks than the petitioners and have not been selected for appointment in view of the limited number of vacancies, the writ application is fit to be rejected without considering any other question. 6. Mr. 6. Mr. Bishwanath Prasad, the learned counsel appearing in support of the writ application contended that in view of the confusion in the roll numbers, the entire examination should be quashed on the ground of substantial irregularity and the Commission should be directed to hold fresh examination ; and if this prayer is granted, the petitioners, though they did not obtain qualifying marks, could get a fresh opportunity. Reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioners on the decisions in State of Mysore V/s. K. N. Chandrasekhara A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 532 and C. Channabasanath V/s. State of Mysore -- . 7. The petitioners have also filed an application for addition of several of the successful candidates as party respondents which was not pressed during the initial argument of Mr. Bishwanath Prasad. In course of his reply, he drew our attention to it. However, we do not consider it necessary or useful to add them, as in my view, the writ application has no merit and has to be dismissed. The prayer for addition of parties is, therefore, rejected. 8. The statements made on behalf of the Commission explaining the circumstances in which additional roll numbers had to be allotted to genuine candidates appear to be correct. The petitioners have not been able to suggest any acceptable ground for rejecting the version of the respondents. I have gone through the writ petition, the respondents affidavit and the petitioners reply and I do not have any hesitation in rejecting the case of the petitioners about the alleged irregularities. The very foundation of the grievance of the petitioners thus disappears and there is no question of granting any relief to them. Besides, there appears to be considerable force in the plea raised on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners having failed to secure qualifying marks at the Written Test, cannot be held to have been prejudiced by the inclusion of additional candidates. The respondents are right in saying that even if the allegations of the petitioners about the wrong inclusion of some candidates (which are denied by the respondents, are assumed to be correct, still they cannot have been a remote chance of being appointed. The Writ application is, therefore, fit to be rejected on this additional ground also. 9. In the result, the writ application fails and is dismissed, but without costs.