Judgment Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner had passed B.Com., degree in the year 1983 and M.Com., degree in the year 1985. He had also obtained a B.Ed., and M.Ed., degrees in the year 1986 and 2000, respectively. The petitioner has also Diplomas in Labour and Administrative Law and in Co-operation. Further, he belongs to a most backward community. While so, the respondent had called for applications for the post of P.G. Assistant in Commerce. The petitioner had attended the interview held on 28. 1998. In spite of having done very well in the interview, the respondent had selected several other candidates, who had secured lesser marks than the petitioner. One R. Subramanian, who is junior to the petitioner in the Employment Exchange seniority and who had secured lesser marks than the petitioner had also been selected. Further, the respondent had not followed the rule of reservation while selecting candidates for appointment to the post of P.G. Assistant. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that the petitioner had scored lesser marks than the other candidates selected. The selection had been made purely on merits and all the procedural requirements had been followed during the selection process. As such the claims made by the petitioner are devoid of merits. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the respondent, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for granting the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition. The petitioner has not shown that the selection process was arbitrary or illegal. Further, there is nothing to show that the petitioner had secured more marks than those candidates, who have been selected for the post of P.G. Assistant. Nor has it been shown that the rule of reservation and the other prescribed procedures had not been followed by the respondent during the recruitment process. Further, there is nothing to show that the petitioner had secured more marks than those candidates, who have been selected for the post of P.G. Assistant. Nor has it been shown that the rule of reservation and the other prescribed procedures had not been followed by the respondent during the recruitment process. Even though the petitioner has stated that certain other candidates who had secured lesser marks and who are junior to the petitioner in the employment exchange seniority have been selected, overlooking the claims of the petitioner, they have not been impleaded as parties in the present writ petition. In such circumstances, it is clear that the writ petition is devoid of merits. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.