JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. The petitioner along with the others had appeared in an examination known as “Combined Lower Subordinate Services Examination, 2010”, which was conducted by State Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand. Amongst the posts for which the selection was being made, there were also the posts of Senior Cane Development Inspector and the Cane Development Inspector for which one of the essential condition was that a candidate must be possessing Bachelor’s Degree in Agriculture. Since the degree of the petitioner was called Bachelor in Agriculture and Animal Husbandry, it was initially not being considered by the Commission and such persons including the petitioners had filed Writ Petition (S/S) Nos. 476 & 491 of 2013, which were allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 29.07.2013 and their degree of Bachelor in Agriculture and Animal Husbandry was declared to be the same degree as a degree in Agriculture, and it was held that the change in nomenclature would not matter. Special Appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.07.2013 filed by the State Public Service Commission was also dismissed. Subsequently, the candidature of the petitioners was considered and most of the petitioners have been appointed, save the present petitioner. Hence, she has filed the present writ petition saying that more than 13 posts of Can Development Inspector have been left vacant, on which the petitioner could have been appointed. 2. In reply, the State Public Service Commission has stated that for general category candidate, such as the petitioner, the minimum cut off marks is 45% and since the petitioner has admittedly got 40%, which is less than the cut off marks fixed, the petitioner has not been selected. 3. The petitioner, on the other hand, contends that the recruitment process for the posts, on which the petitioner claims appointment, started in the year 2010 itself when there was no regulations framed by the State Public Service Commission and certainly there was no regulation which could show that for a general category candidate it is necessary to have secured 45% cut off marks. According to the petitioner, this regulation only came in the year 2013 by amendment in the regulations. 4. According to the petitioner, this regulation only came in the year 2013 by amendment in the regulations. 4. This contention of the petitioner, however, is denied by the State Public Service Commission which says that right from its very inception the State Public Service Commission had its own rules where a cut off marks were determined where for general category candidate it was 45%, whereas relaxation was given to the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. According to the learned counsel for the Commission, in the year 2013, by an amendment, it was specifically stated that for general category candidate the minimum cut off marks will be 45%. It would not, however, mean that prior to the amendment there were no cut off marks! An affidavit to this effect has also been filed on behalf of the State Public Service Commission. 5. In fact the case of the petitioner is also beyond reasoning since State Public Service Commission obviously cannot select a candidate unless and until it has pre-determined as to what would the cut off marks for such candidates. It has specifically been stated by the Commission that cut off marks for general category candidate has always been 45% and this is how every time the general candidates have been evaluated as per the internal management of the Commission. This Court has no reason to doubt the veracity of this claim. 6. In view of the aforesaid, since admittedly the petitioner has secured 40% marks which are below the cut off marks fixed by the Commission i.e. 45%, the petitioner cannot be granted any relief. Writ petition therefore fails and is hence dismissed.