Hon'ble JAIN, J.—The main question involved in the present case is, "whether, for the post of Warder mentioned at Sr. No. 12 in Category II of Schedule-I appended with the Rajasthan Jail Subordinate Service Rules, 1998, a written examination is necessary or not and whether the Rule 27 of Rules of 1998 is applicable for the said post or not." 2. In this bunch of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the Advertisement dated 21st December, 1998 (Annexure 1) issued by the respondent Director General of Prisons, Rajasthan, Jaipur advertising the 244 posts of `Warder' being contrary to Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Jails Subordinate Service Rules, 1998 (here-in-after referred to "Rules of 1998"). The process of selection mentioned in the advertisement is that physical efficiency test will be conducted by physical Screening Committee, the persons securing more than 50 marks in the physical efficiency test will be called for interview. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that as per Rule 26, the competitive examination for direct recruitment to a post in category I of Schedule I shall be conducted by the Commission in accordance with the Scheme of examination laid down in Schedule-II and as per Rule 27, the candidates, who obtained 36% marks in each paper and 40% marks in aggregate in the competitive examination shall be considered to have obtained qualifying marks at the examination. Their contention is that Rule 27 is independent and the obtaining of 36% marks in each paper and 40% marks in the aggregate is necessary for all the posts of Category I and Category II of Schedule-I, whereas the respondents are not conducting any written examination for the post of warder, therefore, their action is contrary to Rule 27 of the Rules of 1998, hence, the entire process of selection, as mentioned in the Advertisement, he declared as illegal and contrary to Rule 27, and be quashed. 4. The learned counsel for the State contended that there are two categories of posts categorized as Category I and Category II in Schedule I and as per Rule 26, the written examination is required to be conducted by the Commission in respect of posts in Category I of Schedule I and not for the posts of Category II of Schedule-1. The learned counsel for the State contended that there are two categories of posts categorized as Category I and Category II in Schedule I and as per Rule 26, the written examination is required to be conducted by the Commission in respect of posts in Category I of Schedule I and not for the posts of Category II of Schedule-1. The post of Warder is admittedly falls in category II of Schedule-I, hence no written examination is required to be conducted for the said post. So far as Rule 27 is concerned, it is contended that the requirement of obtaining minimum marks in each paper and aggregate relates to the examination to be conducted by the Commission for the post falling in category I of Schedule I. So far as the post of Warder which falls in Category II of Schedule-I is concerned, a procedure for recruitment has been mentioned in Rule 28 and as per sub-rule (4) of it, it is clear that all candidates whose applications are found to be complete in all respect shall, in case of Warders, be permitted to appear before the physical Screening Committee for qualifying the physical efficiency test. The test shall carry 100 marks and only those candidates, who secured 50 marks or above shall be allowed to appear before the Board for interview, which shall carry 50 marks. He, therefore, contended that Advertisement dated 21st December, 1998 is in accordance with Rule 28 itself and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. It is further contended that all the petitioners submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the respondents by appearing for physical efficiency test and having found `unfit' in it, they preferred the present writ petitions, therefore, they are also estopped from raising all such pleas and writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on this ground also. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 6. For ready reference, Rule 26 to 28, Schedule-I, Category I, Category-II and Schedule-II are reproduced as under: "26. Authority for conducting competitive examination.- The competitive examination for direct recruitment to a post in category I of Schedule-I shall be conducted by the Commission in accordance with the scheme of examination laid down in Schedule-II. 27. 6. For ready reference, Rule 26 to 28, Schedule-I, Category I, Category-II and Schedule-II are reproduced as under: "26. Authority for conducting competitive examination.- The competitive examination for direct recruitment to a post in category I of Schedule-I shall be conducted by the Commission in accordance with the scheme of examination laid down in Schedule-II. 27. Qualifying marks at the written examination.- Candidates who obtain 36% marks in each paper and 40% marks in the aggregate in the competitive examination shall be considered to have obtained qualifying marks at the examination. 28. Physical efficiency test- (1) There shall be a physical efficiency test as may be prescribed by the Appointing Authority through a standing order. (2) All Candidates who are declared successful under rule 27 shall be required to appear before a physical Screening Committee consisting of the Appointing Authority or his nominee not below the rank of Superintendent Gr. I as Chairman, one Superintendent Gr. II and one Inspector of Police or Company Commander of the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary nominated by the Director General of Police in consultation with the Appointing Authority as Members of Physical efficiency test. The physical efficiency test shall carry 100 marks and the candidates who secures 50% marks therein shall be deemed to have qualified the physical efficiency test. The physical screening committee shall forward the list of candidates who have qualified the physical efficiency test, to the Commission through the Appointing Authority. (3) There shall be no physical efficiency test under this Rule in case of candidates who are recruited as Ex-servicemen or Ex-Central Police Organisation personnel. (4). In respect of posts falling within category II of Schedule-I, all candidates whose applications are found to be complete in all respects shall: (i) In case of warders, be permitted to appear before the physical Screening Committee for qualifying physical efficiency test. The test shall carry 100 marks and only those candidates who secure 50 marks or above shall be allowed to appear before the Board for interview, which shall carry 50 marks. (ii) In case of other posts for which direct recruitment is prescribed, be permitted to appear before the Board interview. The test shall carry 100 marks and only those candidates who secure 50 marks or above shall be allowed to appear before the Board for interview, which shall carry 50 marks. (ii) In case of other posts for which direct recruitment is prescribed, be permitted to appear before the Board interview. Schedule- I S. No. Name of post Method of recruit-ment Qualifications and Experience for direct recruitment Post from which promotion is to be made Qualification and experi-ence for promotion Remarks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Category-I 1 - - - - - - 2 - - - - - - 3 - - - - - - 4 - - - - - - 5 - - - - - - Category -II 6 - - - - - - 7 - - - - - - 8 - - - - - - 9 - - - - - - 10 - - - - - - 11 - - - - - - 12 Warder/ Lady Warder (Which includes: 100% by direct recruitment Secondary or equivalent from a recognised Board (a) - - - - - - (b) - - - - - - (c) - - - - - - (d) - - - - - - (e) - - - - - - (f) - - - - - - (g) - - - - - - (h) - - - - - - (i) - - - - - - (j) - - - - - - Schedule-II Written competitive examination to be held under Rule 26 of these Rules shall be conducted by the Commission on the followed pattern: Sr.No. Subject Duration Maximum Marks 1 2 3 4 1 General Hindi 3 hours 200 General Knowledge & General Science (to be answered in English or Hindi 3 hours 200 Syllabus and standards of each subject will be designed by the Appointing Authority in consultation with the Commission. The minimum passing marks for the written examination shall be 36% in each paper and 40% in aggregate. The place and time for holding written examination shall be notified by the Commission from time to time." 7. The minimum passing marks for the written examination shall be 36% in each paper and 40% in aggregate. The place and time for holding written examination shall be notified by the Commission from time to time." 7. Rule 26 quoted above specifically states that the competitive examination for direct recruitment to a post in category I of Schedule I shall be conducted by the Commission in accordance with the scheme of examination laid down in Schedule-II. Admittedly, the post of Warder does not fall in Category I and it falls in category II of Schedule -I. Rule 27 relates to qualifying marks at the written examination and it is prescribed in it that the candidates who obtain 36% marks in each paper and 40% marks in the aggregate in the competitive examination shall be considered to have obtained qualifying marks at the examination. 8. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that Rule 27 should be read independently and it should be made applicable for the post of Category I and Category II of Schedule-I, whereas the submission of learned counsel for the State is that Rule 27 is in continuation of Rule 26 and the same is applicable only in respect of post in Category I of Schedule I and not for the post in Category II of Schedule I, hence Rule 27 is not applicable in the present case. It is correct that Rule 27 says that candidates who obtained 36% marks in each paper and 40% marks in aggregate in the competitive examination shall be considered to have obtained qualifying marks at the examination. As per Schedule II, written competitive examination to be held under Rule 26 of these Rules shall be conducted by the Commission on the following pattern. The written examinations are required to be taken for General Hindi of 200 marks and General Knowledge and General Science of 200 marks. Schedule-II specifically prescribes that the written competitive examination to be held under Rule 26 of these Rules and Rule 26 specifically says that competitive examination for direct recruitment to a post in Category I of Schedule-I shall be conducted by the Commission. Schedule-II specifically prescribes that the written competitive examination to be held under Rule 26 of these Rules and Rule 26 specifically says that competitive examination for direct recruitment to a post in Category I of Schedule-I shall be conducted by the Commission. Hence, if Rule 26 is read with Schedule-II and Rule 27, then it is clear that written examination by Commission is required only for the post of Category I of Schedule I and not for the post of Category II of Schedule-I. This Court can declare any `rule' as unconstitutional if it is challenged and case is made out for the same but cannot `add' anything in it or alter or modify it. So far as, these cases are concerned, the petitioners have been challenged the validity of Rules. The language of rules 26 to 28 is very simple and clear and it does not require any interpretation. In these circumstances, it is clear that the requirement of obtaining 36% marks in each paper and 40% marks in aggregate as per Rule 27 is only in respect of post of Category I of Schedule I and not for the post of Category II of Schedule-I. 9. So far as the post of Warder mentioned at Sr. No. 12 in Category II Schedule I is concerned, there is a specific procedure laid down in clause (i) of sub-rule (4) of Rule 28, according to which there shall be a physical efficiency test as may be prescribed by the Appointing Authority through a standing order. In respect of posts falling within Category II of Schedule-I, all candidates, whose applications are found to be complete in all respects shall, in case of Warders, be permitted to appear before the physical Screening Committee for qualifying physical efficiency test. The test shall carry 100 marks and only those candidates who secure 50 marks or above shall be allowed to appear before the Board for interview, which shall carry 50 marks. The appointing authority- respondent No. 3 has issued standing order No. 1/98 dated 10th December, 1998 prescribing the entire procedure for selection for the post of Warder. In these circumstances, I find that procedure for selection mentioned in the Advertisement dated 21st December, 1998 is absolutely in accordance with Rules of 1998. 10. The appointing authority- respondent No. 3 has issued standing order No. 1/98 dated 10th December, 1998 prescribing the entire procedure for selection for the post of Warder. In these circumstances, I find that procedure for selection mentioned in the Advertisement dated 21st December, 1998 is absolutely in accordance with Rules of 1998. 10. Apart-from above, it is also relevant to mention that all the petitioners appeared before physical Screening Committee for qualifying physical efficiency test and having found `unfit' or `unqualified' in the same, challenged the Advertisement dated 21.12.1998 by way of these writ petitions in the year 2004. The petitioners were aware about Rules of 1998 and in case they were aggrieved with the advertisement, then the cause of action had already accrued for them to file the present writ petitions in the month of December, 1998 or soon thereafter, but they did not challenge the said Advertisement during the period from 1998 till the filing of the writ petitions in the year 2004 and in these circumstances, they are now estopped to challenge the action of the respondents and writ petitions suffer from delay/latches also. 11. The officer concerned was also called to let this Court know as to whether the process for selection in pursuance of above advertisement has been completed or not. The learned Government Counsel, on instructions, contended that process had been completed long back and at present there is no vacant post of the relevant year. Thereafter a further advertisement for the said post has also been issued. 12. In view of above discussions, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions and the same are, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. 13. A copy of this order may be placed in each file.