1. Public Service Commission issued Advertisement Notice Nos. 3-PSC of 2010 dated 28th May, 2010 & 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 Remembrancer. Writ petitioner along with other candidates applied in pursuance to the said notifications. Examination was conducted and thereafter Notification No. PSC/DR/ALR-PLO/2010 dated 06.04.2011 came to be issued for conducting interview of eligible candidates (annexure 'C')- Petitioner has questioned the said notification on the ground that question paper assigned to petitioner had many out of syllabus questions. Thus no selection can be made on the basis of examination in which l/3rd questions were out of syllabus. It is further averred that the respondents thereafter 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. At the very outset, it needs to be brought on record that an identical matter being SWP No. 760/2011 titled Yogeshwar Singh and ors. v. State and Ors, has been dealt with and decided by this court, at its Jammu wing, on 11th April, 2012, of which, incidentally I am the author. 5. The facts of the said case are quite similar to the one in hand as both are emanating from one and the same Advertisement Notice; the grounds of attack are same, only the person, throwing challenge to it, is different. Therefore, the fate of both would be similar too. 6. The petition calls for dismissal, lonely of it being suffering from non-joinder of the parties, as the selected candidates have not been arrayed as party-respondents. However, the stand taken by the respondents make the petition more vulnerable to withstand. 7. Public Service Commission-respondents 1 to 3 submit that Rule 12 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. as also the procedure for evaluation. Any candidate, if aggrieved, has to represent the Commission within 3 days from the date the examination is held and thereafter Commission has to make a decision. 8. as also the procedure for evaluation. Any candidate, if aggrieved, has to represent the Commission within 3 days from the date the examination is held and thereafter Commission has to make a decision. 8. Eight Hundred (800) candidates sought consideration and after holding screening test in terms of Rule 40 of J&K Public Service Commission (Business and Proced ure) 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. 9. It has been specifically averred that no question was out of syllabus. However, petitioner has not invoked the remedy in terms of the rules and has not questioned the same till the result was declared. It is further averred that the petitioner attempted all the alleged out of syllabus questions, and has responded all those questions correctly and his performance was much better as compared to remaining 76 questions. Virtually after having failed to make the grade, the petitioner has questioned the notification.: 10. 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. 11. Keeping in view the stand of respondents, petitioner has not projected his grievance in terms of the Rules at the relevant point of time that many questions were out of syllabus, thus is precluded from raising such a plea at belated stage. He attempted all the questions and has replied the same rightly as admitted by the respondents. Thus, the petitioner 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. 12. In the given circumstances, petitioner has not carved out a case for interference. Accordingly, this writ petition merits to be dismissed. Dismissed as such along with all CMPs. Interim direction shall stand vacated.