The petitioner participated in the selection process under the Open Category for selection of the candidates for J&K Combined Services (Mains) Examination as per SRO 161 of 1995 carried out by the Public Service Commission. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner had successfully qualified the preliminary test and, thereafter, competed in the Mains Examination. Since he could not make the grade in the Main Examination, therefore, he was not called for interview. 3. The case of petitioner is that as per his merit position, he deserved to be called for interview. His further case is that he had faired well in all the papers of different subjects, but his papers have not been properly evaluated. 4. The stand of respondent-Commission is that the petitioner had obtained 977 marks out of 1950 marks in all the papers except General English. In General English he obtained 72 marks out of 300. The last selected candidate in the Open Category had obtained 988 marks. In view of lower merit of petitioner, he was rightly not called for interview. 5. As regards the other contention, the stand of respondent-Commission is that there is no provision in the rules providing for re-evaluation of the papers, therefore, whatever marks have been allocated to the petitioner are required to be accepted by him. In a case, entitled, Maharashtra State Board of Secondary And Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, 1984 (4) SCC 27: "12.......The principles of natural justice cannot be extended beyond reasonable and rational limits and cannot be carried to such absurd lengths as to make it necessary that candidates who have taken a public examination should be allowed to participate in the process of evaluation of their performances or to verify the correctness of the evaluation made by the examiners by themselves conducting an inspection of the answer books and determining whether there has been a proper and fair valuation of the answers by the examiners." 6. The Honble Apex Court in case Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, 2004 (6) SCC 714 observed that ".......In the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer-books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks. In such a situation, the prayer made by the appellant in the writ petition was wholly untenable and the Single Judge had clearly erred re-evaluated. In such a situation, the prayer made by the appellant in the writ petition was wholly untenable and the Single Judge had clearly erred re-evaluated. Adopting such a course will give rise to practical problems and in the larger interest, they must be avoided." 7. Accordingly, there is no merit in the contention of Mr. Siddiqui that the petitioner was to be called for interview. 8. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition. It is as such dismissed along with the connected CMP. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.