JUDGMENT : 1. Vide Advertisement Notice dated 29.12.2016, issued by Director General of Police, J&K, Jammu, applications were invited from the permanent residents of J&K State for filling up 49 posts of Prosecuting Officers in J&K Police. Subsequently, some more posts became available, as a result whereof, addendum has been issued on 13.08.2013, providing that 98 posts of Prosecuting Officers with the following break-up are available: OM RBA ST SC ALC Social Caste Total 56 19 10 08 03 02 98 2. The desirous candidates fulfilling the eligibility criteria notified vide Advertisement Notice dated 29.12.2012 were to apply with a further condition that the candidates who had already applied in pursuance to earlier Advertisement Notice need not to apply. 3. Amongst others, petitioners had earlier applied but they failed to make the grade, hence the instant petition. 4. During the pendency of writ petitions, some more candidates filed application for being impleaded as party to the lis. 5. The process of selection culminated in final selection and appointment of private respondents. Petitioners seek quashment of the entire process of selection including select list of private respondents No.3 to 100. 6. The first ground projected by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that as per Advertisement Notice dated 29.12.2012, the qualification prescribed was Bachelor’s Degree in law with minimum of 50% marks and age as on 1st January, 2012 was required to be not less than 18 years and not more than 28 years, which is in-keeping with Rule 176 of the Police Rules. Respondents have issued notice dated 11.06.2013, in terms whereof, in partial modification of advertisement notice 2912.2012, with respect to educational qualification, the words “minimum 50% marks” have been omitted and the age has been notified to be required as not less than 18 years and not more than 37 years as on 1st January, 2012. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not justify as to how petitioners are effected by such notice. The qualification prescribed has remained the same, however, words “minimum 50% marks” have been omitted but that has not caused any prejudice to the petitioners. The upper age limit has been prescribed as 37 years as per the amendment to rules. The said position has been clearly notified in the advertisement notice. Thereafter all the candidates including petitioners have participated in the selection process. 8. The upper age limit has been prescribed as 37 years as per the amendment to rules. The said position has been clearly notified in the advertisement notice. Thereafter all the candidates including petitioners have participated in the selection process. 8. The next contention is that the respondents were required to call the candidates for interview in the ratio of 1:3, means as against 98 vacancies, 294 candidates were to be called but they have called 352 candidates. This position has, however, been clarified by the respondents by stating that 294 candidates were to be called but there was tie among seven candidates which were included. In addition to that, 49 more candidates were called for interview on the basis of court directions. It is pertinent to mention here, that when the shortlist was issued, some candidates had filed writ petition which was disposed of. As against that judgment, Letters Patent Appeal was filed. Said appeal registered as LPA No.171/2015 and batch of writ petitions were disposed of by the LPA Bench vide judgment dated 29.09.2015. The operative part of the judgment reads as under: “As 2 questions (i.e. for question no 26 & 39) out of 45 have been found having wrong answer options, appropriate marks be awarded to all the candidates who appeared in the written examination and have attempted these two questions or one of them, and based on the award of such marks to all such candidates the Selection Committee is directed to redraw the merit list of the written examination and based on the said redrawn merit list, if any candidate comes within the cut off marks already fixed for inviting him/her to appear in the viva voce test, they should also be called for the Viva Voce Test and thereafter only the selection shall be finalized”. 9. In compliance to the said judgment, vide notice dated 13.11.2015, 49 more candidates who made the grade were added. How the petitioners are aggrieved, they could not answer. Though more than 300 candidates have been called but still petitioners could not figure amongst them. Un-necessarily this ground has been projected which has got no meaning nor has got any impact or prejudice on the rights of the petitioners. 10. How the petitioners are aggrieved, they could not answer. Though more than 300 candidates have been called but still petitioners could not figure amongst them. Un-necessarily this ground has been projected which has got no meaning nor has got any impact or prejudice on the rights of the petitioners. 10. Next learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that after the issuance of select list within 15 days’ formalities were to be completed for allowing the candidates to join but in hot haste they have been allowed to join so as to avoid intervention of the Court. This argument is totally in wilderness. Petitioners have no case. They are not figuring anywhere in order of merit. When they have failed to make the grade, how are they aggrieved by the joining of selected candidates. 11. Petitioners without any justified cause and locus have filed the instant petition. With all calculations, they have consciously participated in the process of selection. After having failed to make the grade have turned around to claim that the process of selection is defective. No such defect has been brought to the notice of the Court which, in any manner, would have caused any prejudice to the rights of the petitioners. Such type of petitions deserves to be dismissed with costs but taking a lenient view, no order as to costs. Both the petition are, accordingly, dismissed.