Judgment Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.—Rule. Mr. G.M. Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent waives service. 2. By preferring the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ or direction, restraining the respondent, The Registrar (Recruitment & Finance), High Court of Gujarat, from finalizing the selection procedure for the purpose of Driver (Class-III) pursuant to the advertisement appearing on the website of respondent on 29th June 2013. Further, the petitioner has prayed that the respondent may be directed to call him for oral interview for the post of Driver, which was scheduled to be held on 31st October 2013 by considering the merit list of the respective examinations attempted by the petitioner. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he has passed S.S.C. Examination in the year 1991, and holds Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license issued by the Competent Authority. The petitioner has also passed the certificate course of “Mechanic Motor Vehicle” conducted by the National Council for Vocational Training. He also passed vocational training programme for Four Wheeler Repairing, as per the certificate issued on 8th January 2004. The petitioner is working as a Car Mechanic at present. 4. Pursuant to the on-line advertisement dated 29th June 2013 issued by the respondents inviting applications for recruitment of eighteen posts of Driver (Class-III), the petitioner made an on-line application with the prescribed fee of Rs.150/- as, according to him, he possesses the requisite qualifications for the said post. On 14th August 2013, the respondent intimated all the candidates regarding written test to be held on 25th August 2013 on the website of the High Court of Gujarat. As per the advertisement 100 marks were to be allowed for the written test, 100 marks for the driving test and 50 marks for oral interview. The required marks for passing the written test were 45 for the Scheduled Caste category (to which the petitioner belongs) and 50 marks for others. The petitioner appeared in the written examination and passed the same. On 23rd September 2013, the respondent called the petitioner for driving test to be held on 28th September 2013. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared on the scheduled date for the driving test, which was held at Surendranagar. The petitioner appeared in the written examination and passed the same. On 23rd September 2013, the respondent called the petitioner for driving test to be held on 28th September 2013. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared on the scheduled date for the driving test, which was held at Surendranagar. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he has passed the written test and, according to him, the driving test, he was not called for the oral interview. Neither the respondent disclosed the marks that were assigned to him in the said tests. 5. Mr. D.B. Rana, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that as per the advertisement, priority was to be given to Car Mechanics. The petitioner had submitted the certificate of Car Mechanic along with his application, therefore, he was entitled for priority in appointment. It is next submitted that the respondent has not disclosed how many marks have been given to the petitioner in the driving test, therefore, there are all chances of misleading the candidates by saying that they are not qualified for viva-voce test. The petitioner has given the driving test, and according to him, he has fared well, but he has not received any intimation from the respondent regarding the marks given to him for this test. The name of the petitioner ought to have been reflected in the list of 75 candidates who qualified for the viva-voce test, especially because the petitioner can claim priority being a Car Mechanic. However, the petitioner has been deprived of an opportunity to appear in the oral interview in spite of faring well in the written test and the driving test, the test, which has caused miscarriage of justice to him. In support of the submission, learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Sher Singh vs. Union of India [ (1984) 1 SCC 107 ]. 6. Learned advocate for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the suggestions made by the petitioner regarding how the selection process should be conducted, in Paragraph No. 2.9 of the memorandum of the petition. He submits that the respondent may be directed to abide by those suggestions while conducting the selection process in future. 7. The petition has been strongly resisted by Mr. He submits that the respondent may be directed to abide by those suggestions while conducting the selection process in future. 7. The petition has been strongly resisted by Mr. G.M. Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent by submitting that though the advertisement does mention that Car Mechanics would be given priority, however, such preference or priority is only to be given among equals. The petitioner in the present case has failed in the driving test, therefore, he was not called for the oral interview. Had the petitioner secured equal marks to another candidate who had passed the driving test, and had both been on an equal level, only then the petitioner be given priority over the other candidate as he is a Car Mechanic. However, in the present case, the question of giving priority does not arise as the petitioner has not been successful in the driving test. 8. It is further submitted that at every stage of the selection, there is a subjective satisfaction of the appointment authority regarding the merit of the candidate. In the present case, the petitioner cannot claim that simply because he has crossed one stage, i.e. the written test and he cannot be given appointment if he does not qualify in the next stage, i.e. the driving test. It is contended that the proposition propounded by the learned advocate for the petitioner that since he has applied, he must necessarily be selected though he does not qualify, cannot be accepted. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner has no fundamental right of appointment to a particular post. Had the petitioner been selected, he would not have found fault with the procedure. The petitioner only has a grouse because he has not been selected and the reason for non-selection is that the petitioner has not qualified in the driving test. Having participated in the selection process, the petitioner cannot lay challenge to it. In support of his submission, learned advocate for the respondent has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar [ (2010) 12 SCC 576 ]. On the strength of the above submission , it is prayed that the petition be dismissed. 9. In support of his submission, learned advocate for the respondent has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar [ (2010) 12 SCC 576 ]. On the strength of the above submission , it is prayed that the petition be dismissed. 9. Learned advocate for the petitioner has reiterated the submissions advanced by him earlier in rejoinder by emphasising that the petitioner ought to have been informed of the marks that he has received in the test given by him. 10. This Court has heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the averments made in the petition and the documents annexed thereto. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioner has qualified the written test for the post of Driver (Class-III). There is also no dispute of the fact that the petitioner is a Car Mechanic and has a certificate to this effect. Learned advocate for the petitioner has strenuously argued that, being a Car Mechanic, the petitioner ought to have been given priority for appointment, over the other candidates. In the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent, it is clearly stated that the petitioner has failed to secure the minimum marks, i.e. viva-voce test. Under the circumstances, as the petitioner has not qualified for the driving test, this Court is unable to agree with the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he ought to have been given priority. Priority or preference can be given to candidates who are on an equal footing. It cannot be given to a candidate, such as the petitioner, who has failed in the driving test, as the said failure would disentitle him to participate in the next stage of the selection procedure, i.e. viva-voce test. Priority cannot be taken to mean that failure can be converted into success. If two successful candidates are equally placed, priority can only be given to a candidate to whom it is permitted by the rules if two successful candidates are equally placed. In the present case, that is not the situation. In Sher Singh (Supra), the Supreme Court has held as below:— “The expression ‘preference’ amongst others means prior right, advantage, precedence etc. In the present case, that is not the situation. In Sher Singh (Supra), the Supreme Court has held as below:— “The expression ‘preference’ amongst others means prior right, advantage, precedence etc. It signifies that other things being equal, one will have preference over the others.” In view of the above dicta of the Supreme Court, the petitioner cannot claim priority having failed in the driving test, especially as the post to which he seeks appointment is that of a driver. 11. Learned advocate for the petitioner has raised his advanced submission that the respondent has not disclosed to the petitioner how many marks he has obtained in the driving test. In the view of this Court, no illegality has been committed by the respondent in this behalf as they are not bound to do so. The list of candidates who have been selected in the interview has been put on the website. It is obvious that those candidates who participated in the written examination and driving test and whose names have not been included in the said list have not qualified to appear for the viva-voce test. If the petitioner is desirous of knowing how many marks he has obtained in a particular examination, he may resort to other lawful means of doing so. However, the respondent is not obliged to disclose the marks of every candidate who appears in any selection process on the website. 12. Regarding the suggestions made by the petitioner as contained in paragraph No. 2.9 of the petition, this Court does not consider it appropriate to permit the petitioner to advise the respondent how and in what manner to conduct the selection process as such suggestions have no legal base, they are not be dealt with by this Court. Learned advocate for the respondent has relied upon Manish Kumar Shahi (Supra) in support of the submission that a challenge to the recruitment process of a candidate himself who has taken part in it is not maintainable. In this behalf, a reference may be made to the observations of the Supreme Court as below:— “16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the petitioner’s name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgments in Madan Lal vs. State of J & K, Marripati Nagaraja vs. Government of A.P., Dhananjay Malik vs. State of Uttaranchal, Amlan Jyoti Borooah vs. State of Assam and K.A. Nagamani vs. Indian Airlines.” 13. As aptly observed by the Supreme Court in the above judgment, had the petitioner been successful, he would not have challenged the selection of driver. Another aspect of the matter is that the petitioner has made a prayer that respondent be directed to call him for the oral interview which came to be held on 31st October 2013. As the said date is over, this prayer cannot be granted. For this reason, the learned advocate for the petitioner has made a fresh prayer at Paragraph No. 6 (AA) inserted by way of draft amendment wherein it is prayed that the respondent may be directed to call the petitioner for an interview for the post of Driver (Class-III) by considering the merit list of the respective examinations attempted by him and to give him appointment. It is further prayed that the respondent may be directed to produce the relevant record of the respective stages of the selection process. In the view of this Court, this additional prayer does not deserve to be granted as the petitioner has failed to obtain the requisite pass marks of 80 per cent in the driving test, which has disentitled him to be called for the written test. This has been stated by the respondent in the affidavit-in-reply affirmed on 20th November 2013. In the view of this Court, this additional prayer does not deserve to be granted as the petitioner has failed to obtain the requisite pass marks of 80 per cent in the driving test, which has disentitled him to be called for the written test. This has been stated by the respondent in the affidavit-in-reply affirmed on 20th November 2013. There is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the same. No material has been produced by the petitioner that would persuade the Court to call for the record. 14. Having viewed the petition from all angles, this Court does not find any merit in it. The petition deserves to be rejected. It is accordingly rejected. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.