1. Public Service Commission issued advertisement notice No. 14-PSC of 2010 dated 24.09.2010 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for making selection against the post of Public Law Officer/Assistant Legal Remembers. Writ petitioners along with other candidates applied in pursuance to the said notification. Examination was conducted and therefore Notification No. PSC/DR/ALR-PLO/2010 dated 06.04.2011 came to be issued for conducting interview of eligible candidates (annexure `C'). Petitioners have questioned the said notification on the ground that more than 42 questions out of 120 of Series `A' were out of syllabus. Thus no selection can be made on the basis of examination in which 1/3rd questions were out of syllabus. It is further averred that the respondents therefore also lowered the cut-off-marks in the open merit category from 92 to 91 in order to accommodate some favourites. Accordingly, it is prayed that the notification and written examination held be quashed. 2. Respondents have filed the reply and resisted the petition. 3. Heard. 4. It is apt to record herein that the petitioners have not arrayed all those candidates, whose interviews were held in terms of the impugned notification, as party respondents in the writ petition. Thus, the writ petition suffers from non-joinder of parties. 5. Public Service Commission-respondents 3 & 4 resisted the writ petition on the ground that Rule 12-A of the J&K Public Service Commission (Conduct of Examinations) Rules, 2005 (for short Rules of 2005) provides self-contained mechanism for deletion of wrong questions etc. and the manner how questions are to be evaluated. Any candidate, if aggrieved, has to represent the Commission within 3 days from the date of examination held and thereafter Commission has to make a decision. 6. 800 candidates sought consideration and after holding screening test in terms of Rule 40 of J&K Public Service Commission (Business and Procedure) Rules, 1980, only 612 candidates appeared and their result was declared on 08.03.2011 and cut-off-mark was fixed as 92 in the open merit category. 7. It has been specifically averred that no question was out of syllabus. However, petitioners have not invoked the remedy in terms of the rules and have not questioned the same till the result was declared. 7. It has been specifically averred that no question was out of syllabus. However, petitioners have not invoked the remedy in terms of the rules and have not questioned the same till the result was declared. It is further averred that the petitioners attempted all the 44 questions, which are allegedly said to be out of syllabus and have responded all those questions correctly and their performance was much better as compared to remaining 76 questions. Virtually after having failed to make the grade, the petitioners have questioned the notification. 8. It has been specifically averred that initially Public Service Commission notified 92 marks as cut-off-point in the open category, but thereafter candidature of one candidate was cancelled, which resulted into short listing of five more candidates for interview as per tier rule, i.e., who have obtained 91 marks. 9. Keeping in view the stand of respondents, petitioners have not projected their grievance in terms of the rules at the relevant point of time that 44 questions were out of syllabus, thus are precluded from raising such a plea at belated stage. They attempted all the questions and have replied the same rightly as admitted by the respondents. Thus, the petitioners cannot question the notification of those candidates who have been called for interview, more so when the said candidates are not party to the writ petition. 10. In the given circumstances, petitioners have not carved out a case for interference. Accordingly, this writ petition merits to be dismissed. Dismissed as such along with all CMPs. 11. Interim direction shall stand vacated.