S. P. SRIVASTAVA, GHANSHYAM DASS, JJ. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant. ( 2 ) IT is not disputed that as against six vacancies of the posts of Stenographer (Hindi), no candidate could be found to be suitable for appointment and all the six posts remained unfilled. ( 3 ) IT may be noticed that the aforesaid candidates in question had to appear in the written test as well as test of shorthand (Hindi) and typing. As pointed out by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of Manjula Devi v. State of Karnataka, (1987) 4 SCC 646 , the purpose and object of the competitive examination is to select most suitable candidates for appointment to public services. It was further indicated that having regard to the nature and characteristics of a competitive examination, it is not possible nor necessary to give notice to the candidates about the minimum marks, which the Commission may determine for purposes of eliminating the unsuitable candidates. The rule of natural justice does not apply to a competitive examination. ( 4 ) IN the present case, the selection committee, duly constituted after determining overall suitability, had found the candidates in question as not suitable for the post of Stenographer (Hindi ). The prescribing of the minimum marks by the selection committee was only to ensure a proper selection and appointing efficient Stenographer. ( 5 ) TAKING into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as brought on record in their totality including the facts noticed in the impugned Judgment passed by the learned single Judge, no Justifiable ground can be said to have been made out for any interference in the discretion exercised by the learned single Judge. ( 6 ) THIS special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. .