JUDGMENT 1. - This special appeal has been preferred by the appellant-petitioner under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 against the order dated 11.9.2002 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3459/2002 by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner. 2. It arises in the following circumstances : "i) That the petitioner filed a writ petition No. 3459/2002 on 30.8.2002 against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to give promotion to the petitioner- appellant on the post of Stenographer Grade I in pursuance of examination conducted on 15.5.99 from the date when the vacancy occurred with all consequential benefits. ii) That the petitioner-appellant was initially appointed on the post of Stenographer Grade II in the year 1990 after having been selected in the open competition held by the respondent No. 2 (The District Judge, Bikaner). Thereafter he was confirmed on the said post in the year 1991. iii) That the post of Stenographer Grade I was to be filled up as per the procedure prescribed in Rule 14(iv) of the Rajasthan Sub-ordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986 (for short the Rules of 1986). As per Rule 14(iv) of the Rules of 1986, the post of Stenographer Grade I was to be filled up from amongst Stenographer Grade II after passing the speed test to be conducted by the appointing authority. iv) That for the purpose of promotion to the post of Stenographer Grade I, the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 7.5.99 informed five stenographers including the present appellant-petitioner to appear in the test. v) Further case of the appellant-petitioner is that respondent No. 2 (Dist. Judge, Bikaner) authorised the Additional Dist. Judge No. 1, Bikaner to conduct and supervise the speed test for promotion to the post of Stenographer Grade I. The test was conducted on 15.5.99 by the Additional Dist. Judge No. 1, Bikaner. The Instructor of ITI, Bikaner was invited to take and evaluate the test. Four persons appeared in the test including the appellant- petitioner. vi) The further case of the petitioner is that in the test, a dictation of 700 words was given by the Instructor is seven minutes which was to be transcribed/typed within 70 minutes. Judge No. 1, Bikaner. The Instructor of ITI, Bikaner was invited to take and evaluate the test. Four persons appeared in the test including the appellant- petitioner. vi) The further case of the petitioner is that in the test, a dictation of 700 words was given by the Instructor is seven minutes which was to be transcribed/typed within 70 minutes. The copies of all the four candidates were examined/evaluated by the Instructor and marks were given according to the Rules of Rajasthan Public Service Commission. vii) It is the further case of the petitioner that to the best of his knowledge, the petitioner obtained 48 marks out of 100 marks and found qualified in the speed test examination, but formal declaration of the result of the examination was not made by the respondent No. 2 (Dist. Judge, Bikaner). viii) That further case of the appellant-petitioner is that he came to know that one of the candidates who appeared in the examination and secured 0% marks namely, Shailendra Kiradoo submitted a representation to the Dist. Judge, Bikaner (respondent No. 2) for cancellation of the examination on the ground that the procedure adopted by the examiner by providing the marks in the speed test was wrong. On the said representation, the respondent No. 2 (Dist. Judge, Bikaner) stayed the issuance of appointment in pursuance of aforesaid examination. ix) It is further case of the petitioner that when the appellant- petitioner was not given promotion to the post of Stenographer Grade I despite the fact that he secured more than passing marks and was the only successful candidate in the test, he submitted a representation (Annex. 1) to respondent No. 2 (Dist. Judge, Bikaner) on 26.5.99. The further case of the petitioner- appellant is that the petitioner also applied for providing him certified copy of result and other documents, but he was supplied copy of letter dated 13.6.2000 (Annex.2) by which result was cancelled. x) That further case of the petitioner-appellant is that the examination was cancelled by the respondent No. 2 (Dist. The further case of the petitioner- appellant is that the petitioner also applied for providing him certified copy of result and other documents, but he was supplied copy of letter dated 13.6.2000 (Annex.2) by which result was cancelled. x) That further case of the petitioner-appellant is that the examination was cancelled by the respondent No. 2 (Dist. Judge, Bikaner) on the ground that the same was not conducted as per the instructions received from the respondent No. 1 (Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court) in as much as the dictation was given for seven minutes instead of six minutes, but at the same time, the representation of the petitioner-appellant was rejected by the respondent No. 1 (Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court) on the ground that no one could secure even minimum speed required as per Rules. xi) That further case of the petitioner-appellant is that respondent No. 2 (Dist. Judge, Bikaner) was going to conduct fresh examinations for promotion to the post of Stenographer Grade I on 1.9.2002. He, submitted a representation (Annex. 5) to respondent No. 2 (Dist. Judge, Bikaner), on 27.8.2002. Hence, the petitioner-appellant filed the above writ petition with the prayer that the petitioner-appellant should have been given promotion on the post of Stenographer Grade I in pursuance of the examination conducted on 15.5.99 and cancellation of examination through letter dated 13.6.2000 (Annex. 2) was illegal on the part of respondent No. 2 (Dist. Judge, Bikaner). 3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition at admission stage inter alia holding : i) That the examination was cancelled through letter dated 13.6.2000 (Annex. 2) and this fact was in the knowledge of the petitioner-appellant, despite this the petitioner filed representation as back as on 29.9.2000 and thus, the petitioner-appellant did not pursue the matter to a logical end. ii) That it was discretionary relief in equitable jurisdiction of this Court to grant relief to the vigilant petitioner and the petitioner- appellant approached this Court when process of fresh selection against started. 4. That since the writ petition was dismissed at admission stage, reply on behalf of the respondents has been filed in this appeal and their main submissions are as under : i) In response to the clarification sought by the respondent No. 2 (Dist. Judge, Bikaner) from respondent No. 1 (Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court) vide letter dated 6.10.99 (Annex. 4. That since the writ petition was dismissed at admission stage, reply on behalf of the respondents has been filed in this appeal and their main submissions are as under : i) In response to the clarification sought by the respondent No. 2 (Dist. Judge, Bikaner) from respondent No. 1 (Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court) vide letter dated 6.10.99 (Annex. R/1), the respondent No. 1 (Registrar General) conveyed the guidelines to respondent No. 1 (Dist. Judge, Bikaner) vide letter dated 12.11.99 (Annex. R/2). ii) Further case of the respondents is that copies were examined as per the guidelines mentioned in letter dated 12.11.99 (Annex.R/2) and as per the guidelines, dictation was to be given for six minutes with a speed of 100 words per minute, but in the speed test conducted on 15.5.99, dictation was given for seven minutes and further more, no candidate has secured the minimum qualifying speed of 100 words per minute which was essential for passing the test and for getting promotion from the post of Stenographer Grade II to Stenographer Grade I and these facts were communicated by the Additional Dist. Judge No. 1, Bikaner (officer-incharge) to respondent No. 2 (Dist. Judge, Bikaner) vide letter dated 29.2.2000 (Annex. R/3). iii) Further case of the respondents is that respondent No. 2 (Dist. Judge, Bikaner) after considering the matter and on the recommendation of the officer-incharge i.e. Additional Dist. Judge No. 1, Bikaner cancelled the said examination conducted on 15.5.99 vide notice dated 13.6.2000 (Annex. R/4). Hence, since examination was not got conducted as per the Rules and Procedure, therefore, it was rightly cancelled and thus the writ petition was rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 5. Heard and perused the record. 6. As per Rules of 1986, dictation was to be given for six minutes with a speed of 100 words per minute, but in the speed test conducted on 15.5.99, dictation was given for seven minutes. Further the Letter dated 29.2.2000 (Annex. R/3) written by the Additional Dist. Judge No. 1, Bikaner to respondent No. 2 (Dist. Judge, Bikaner) clearly goes to show that the test was not got conducted in the manner as it should have been conducted as dictation was given for seven minutes in place of six minutes. Apart from this the test conducted by respondent No. 2 (Dist. R/3) written by the Additional Dist. Judge No. 1, Bikaner to respondent No. 2 (Dist. Judge, Bikaner) clearly goes to show that the test was not got conducted in the manner as it should have been conducted as dictation was given for seven minutes in place of six minutes. Apart from this the test conducted by respondent No. 2 (Dist. Judge, Bikaner) was in violation of the guidelines sent by respondent No. 1 (Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court) through letter dated 12.1.99 (Annex. R/2). 7. Not only this, to get promotion from the post of Stenographer Grade II to Stenographer Grade I, a candidate has to pass the speed test with 100 words per minute, but in the present case, petitioner-appellant did not qualify the speed test as his short hand speed was below 100 words per minute as is apparent from letter dated 29.2.2000 (Annex. R/3) written by Additional Dist. Judge No. 1, Bikaner (Officer-incharge) to respondent No. 2 (Dist. Judge, Bikaner). When this being the position the petitioner-appellant has got no right to be declared successful. In these circumstances, if the examination was cancelled by the respondent No. 2 (Dist. Judge, Bikaner) through letter dated 13.6.2000 (Annex.2), he had committed no illegality or irregularity in doing so. 8. The main argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the examination was wrongly cancelled by the respondent No. 2 (Dist. Judge, Bikaner) and since the appellant-petitioner had secured highest marks in the examination, therefore, he should have been given promotion to the post of Stenographer Grade I. This argument would not be helpful to the petitioner- appellant in any manner as he has not passed the speed test with minimum speed of 100 words per minute. Therefore, this argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner stands rejected. Under such circumstances, no legal right of the petitioner-appellant has been infringed by cancelling the examination through letter dated 13.6.2000 (Annex. 2) and the petitioner-appellant is not entitled to any relief. 9. For the reasons mentioned above, this appeal has no force and the same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.No order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******