JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan, C.J. 1. The Petitioner has raised the same contentions in this case as the Petitioner in C.W.P. No. 1654 of 1996. Uma Dass and Anr. v. State of H.P. and Ors., and argued that the allotment of 20 marks for the oral interview is unreasonable. But on the perusal of the records, it is seen that the Petitioner has secured 19 marks out of 20 marks in the oral interview and he has secured only 19-1/2 out of 40 in the written test. Thus, it is quite obvious that the Petitioner cannot make out a case by succeeding in his contention that the marks allotted for the interview are unreasonable. Even if his contention is accepted, he will be entitled to 15 or less marks which will put him far below in the select list of candidates. In our judgment in C.W.P. No. 1654 of 1996, delivered today, the reasonings in which will apply to this case, we have rejected the contentions in that case and in the present case also we reject the same. 2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the relevant Rules the Punjab Police Rules, namely, 12.12 to 12.17 have been violated by the Respondents inasmuch as the Director General of Police has prescribed marks for different tests. There is no substance in this contention as the Rules do not provide for any allocation of marks in the various tests. The Director General of Police was entitled to prescribe the marks. Hence that contention fails. In the result, there is no merit whatever in the case of the Petitioner and it is dismissed.