Judgment :- 1. The petitioner applied for Group I Services examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. She attended preliminary examination in the year 2000, where she was declared selected for taking up main written examination. The petitioner thereafter participated in the main written examination conducted by the respondent from 24.09.2001 to 17.10.2001. 2. It is the case of petitioner, that her performance was excellent, but her shock and surprise, her name did not appear in the list of successful candidates. It is submission of petitioner, that she had opted for geography and Tamil Literature subjects. 3. Prior to participation in Group I, she had also appeared in Group II service commission and was selected as Co-operative Auditor. In the year 1996, she attended interview and was selected as Group I Anti Dowry Cell DSP and in the year 1997. 4. It is the case of petitioner, that on enquiry, it was revealed that the new method of scaling down technique was introduced for the valuation of papers. The method was adopted for the first time, wherein most of the meritorious candidates from different optional subjects were not selected. 5. The petitioner, therefore, immediately filed representation, requesting to verify whether the scaling down technique was properly implemented. 6. It is the submission of petitioner, that the scaling down technique as adopted by the UPSC or Rajasthan Public Service Commission was not adopted by the respondent. On the pleadings referred to above, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for quashing of the entire selection process. 7. The writ as drafted is not maintainable, firstly for the reason that the petitioner has not impleaded the selected candidates, whose selection is challenged. The writ petition thus suffers from vice of non joinder of necessary parties. 8. The writ petition is also not maintainable, as the petitioner participated in the selection process, and after having not been successful, is estopped from challenging the criteria of selection. 9. The writ petition otherwise also is vague, as it does not disclose as to how the method adopted was illegal or not sustainable in law. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that the actual facts could only be known on filing of counter, only shows that the petitioner has filed the writ without ascertaining correct facts, therefore, the action of petitioner deserves to be depreciated. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that the actual facts could only be known on filing of counter, only shows that the petitioner has filed the writ without ascertaining correct facts, therefore, the action of petitioner deserves to be depreciated. It is well settled law, that petitioner has to stand on its own leg and cannot depend on weakness of respondents. If the pleading in writ petition do not disclose any case, then no ground is made out to direct the respondents to file counter. The writ petition therefore is totally misconceived. 10. No merits. Dismissed. 11. No costs.