Judgment Sham Sunder, J. 1. The petitioner joined Army on 28.02.1979. During the Army service, he passed B.A. (TDC), Part-III Examination, held in September, 1979, from Punjabi University Patiala. Thereafter, he passed B.Ed. Examination, held in the year 1989, from the same University. The petitioner served in the Army from 28.2.1979 to 31.10.2000, as an Education Instructor. In pursuance of the advertisement, published in the Newspaper, The Tribune, issued on 28.06.2001, copy Annexure P-4, the respondents invited applications for 351 posts of S.S. Masters (Male) (Code No. 0613). The petitioner, being eligible, applied for the post of S.S. Master, against the category of Ex-servicemen (General). He received a letter for interview, issued by respondent No. 3. He was also issued the roll number. Thereafter, he appeared for interview on 12.10.2001, at Chandigarh. The respondents, declared and published the result of selection of S.S. Masters (Male), in the newspaper "Rozana Ajit" dated 25.11.2001. The extract of the result relating to different categories of Ex.-Servicemen, is Annexure P-6. It was stated that the total number of Ex.-Servicemen candidates, belonging to different categories, who were selected for appointment, was about 34 whereas according to Rule 4(i) of the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982, 15% posts were reserved for Ex- servicemen. Thus, out of 351 vacancies, 52 vacancies were meant for Ex- Servicemen. It was further stated that the respondents, therefore, did not give due representation to the Ex-Servicemen and ignored the candidates of this category, including the petitioner, who were eligible and available for appointment. It was further stated that the respondents kept 18 vacancies unfilled, with an aim to adjust and appoint their own persons temporarily, from other sources. It was further stated that the respondents did not mention the criteria of selection, and the marks kept for interview. However, the said selection was made in an arbitrary manner, by giving more marks, in the interview, to their own candidates, and the candidates recommended by the political masters. It was further stated that the petitioner, who was fully qualified, and eligible for appointment as S.S. Master, against the category of Ex-Servicemen, was arbitrarily ignored. Accordingly, the instant petition, for issuance a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents, to fill up all the vacancies of S.S. Masters, reserved for Ex-servicemen (General), as per the Rules and Instructions, was filed. 2. Accordingly, the instant petition, for issuance a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents, to fill up all the vacancies of S.S. Masters, reserved for Ex-servicemen (General), as per the Rules and Instructions, was filed. 2. The respondents, in the written statement, admitted that the petitioner fell within the category of Ex-Servicemen. It was stated that as per the reservation policy, 13% posts were reserved for Ex-Servicemen, out of which 7% were meant for Ex-Servicemen (General), Category. Out of 351 posts of Social Science Masters/Mistress 25 posts were meant for Ex-servicemen (General) category and accordingly 25 candidates were selected, from this category, with five candidates, in waiting list. The last selected candidate secured 45.69 marks, but the petitioner secured 40.90 marks. The last candidate of Ex- Servicemen (General) Category in the waiting list secured 44.85 marks, so the petitioner could not be selected. The remaining averments, were denied being wrong. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 4. The Counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that according to Rule 4(i) of the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982, reservation of vacancies, for Ex-servicemen, was stipulated as 15%. He further contended that, on the other hand, as per the stand taken up by the respondents, in the written statement, reservation of posts for Ex-Servicemen, was only 13% in relation to the process of selection in question. He further submitted that had the vacancies, in view of the reservation of 15% of Ex-Servicemen as per Rule 4 of the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982, been filled, he would have been selected. He further submitted that the respondents acted against the provisions of the aforesaid Rules and, as such, the petitioner was required to be considered for appointment against one of the vacancies, reserved for Ex-Servicemen (General) category. He further contended that the remaining vacancies of S.S. Masters of Ex-servicemen category, in view of the advertisement, referred to hereinbefore, were also required to be filled up. 5. On the contrary, the learned Counsel for the respondents, contended that Rule 4 sub-rule (i), of the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982, was amended on 21.03.1989, vide notification No. G.S.R. 43/Const./Art. 309, 234 and 318/Amd.(3) /89. According to this amendment, the reservation of 15% for the category of Ex-Servicemen, was reduced to 14%. 5. On the contrary, the learned Counsel for the respondents, contended that Rule 4 sub-rule (i), of the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982, was amended on 21.03.1989, vide notification No. G.S.R. 43/Const./Art. 309, 234 and 318/Amd.(3) /89. According to this amendment, the reservation of 15% for the category of Ex-Servicemen, was reduced to 14%. He further contended that out of the total reservation of 14% for Ex-Servicemen, 8% posts were to be filled up, by the Ex-Servicemen (General), Category candidates, whereas 4% posts were to be filled up by Ex-Servicemen (Scheduled Castes) Category candidates, and 2% posts were to be filled up by Ex-Servicemen (Backward Class) Category candidates. He further contended that, in this manner, out of 351 posts, only 28 posts fell for Ex-Servicemen(General) category, whereas 7 posts fell for Ex-Servicemen (Backward Classes) Category and 13 posts fell for Ex-Servicemen (Scheduled Castes) Category. He further contended that 25 candidates from Ex-Servicemen(General) category, were selected and five candidates of this category were kept in the waiting list. He further contended that the last candidate, who was selected against Ex-Servicemen (General) Category, secured 45.69% marks, whereas, the last candidate kept in the waiting list, against Ex-Servicemen(General) Category, secured 44.85% marks and the petitioner secured 40.90% marks and, therefore, he did not fall within the zone of selection, and could not be selected. He further submitted that the selection was made according to the Rules. 6. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, do not merit acceptance. For facility of reference, Rule 4 sub-rule (i), of the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982 (amended up to date) is extracted as under : "In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 read with articles 234 and 318 of the Constitution of India and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the President of India is pleased to make the following rules further to amend the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982, namely :- (i) These Rules may be called the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen ( First Amendment ) Rules, 1989. (ii) In the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-servicemen Rules, 1982, in rule 4, in sub-rule (1) for the words "fifteen per cent", the words "fourteen per cent" shall be substituted." 7. (ii) In the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-servicemen Rules, 1982, in rule 4, in sub-rule (1) for the words "fifteen per cent", the words "fourteen per cent" shall be substituted." 7. Once there was amendment in Rule 4 sub-rule (i) of the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982, regarding the reduction of percentage of reservation of Ex-servicemen category, the earlier Rule 4 of the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-servicemen Rules, 1982, was superseded. The plain reading of the amended Rule, clearly goes to show that instead of 15%, the words 14% were substituted. The reliance of the learned Counsel for the petitioner on un- amended Rule 4 of the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982, was, therefore, mis-conceived and mis-placed. As stated above, according to the amended Rule, 8% posts fell to the share of Ex-servicemen (General) category, to which the petitioner belonged, whereas 2% posts fell to the share of Ex- Servicemen(Backward Classes) category, and 4% posts fell to the share of Ex- servicemen (Scheduled Castes) category. Out of 49 posts of Ex-servicemen category, 28 posts fell to the share of Ex-servicemen (General) category. The claim of the petitioner was only to be considered against this category. It is evident from Annexure P-6, extract of the result, that 25 candidates were selected from Ex-servicemen (General) category. The last candidate secured 45.69% marks, whereas, five candidates of this category were kept in the waiting list. The last candidate of this category, kept in the waiting list secured 44.85% marks, whereas, the marks obtained by the petitioner, were 40.90%. In these circumstances, the name of the petitioner did not fall within the zone of consideration, since he secured even much less marks than the last candidate in the waiting list. He by no stretch of imagination, could be selected as S.S. Master, against this category. There is no material, on the record, that there was any bungling, in the process of selection. Mere allegation made by the petitioner in the petition, without any admissible material to substantiate the same, does not, in any way, make the selection process illegal. Even more than the requisite number of candidates as per the percentage of reservation, against the Ex-servicemen (General) Category, were either selected or placed in the waiting list. It, therefore, could not be said that all the vacancies of this category were not filled up. Even, otherwise, it was for the Govt. Even more than the requisite number of candidates as per the percentage of reservation, against the Ex-servicemen (General) Category, were either selected or placed in the waiting list. It, therefore, could not be said that all the vacancies of this category were not filled up. Even, otherwise, it was for the Govt. to decide as to how many S.S. Masters were required and how many vacancies were to be filled up. Since, no legal right, vested in the petitioner, for being selected as SS Master, against the Ex- servicemen(General) Category, being much lower in merit, the same cannot be enforced by the issuance of Writ of Mandamus. 8. For the reasons recorded hereinbefore, the revision-petition being without merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed, with no order as to costs.