JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the selection process for the post of Constable-Driver in the District Ajmer, pursuant to advertisement dated 25.05.2018. 2. The respondents published an advertisement for filling up the post of Constable and Constable-Driver. The petitioner, having applied for the post of Constable-Driver is concerned with the selection of Constable-Driver, particularly in OBC category of District - Ajmer. 3. The selection in question was to be made in two steps - (i) written Examination and (ii) Physical Standard Test/PST and Physical Efficiency Test/PET. 4. The result of the written examination was declared in August, 2018, in which the petitioner secured 45.875 marks. 5. The cut-off was declared after the written examination and accordingly cut-off marks for General (male) category was 49.375, whereas cut-off marks in OBC (male) category was 51.875. 6. The petitioner preferred the present writ petition inter alia, contending that though the cut-off for OBC category was 51.875, yet, a candidate namely Bhajan Lal, having secured 49.875 marks has been selected and given appointment on the post of Constable-Driver. 7. A reply to the writ petition has been filed inter alia, stating that as the cut-off declared after the written examination showed that cut-off for OBC category was higher than that of General category, all the candidates including said Bhajan Lal were called in subsequent process of selection, who had secured marks equal to or more than cut-off of General category. 8. On 08.11.2019, this Court finding that the reply of the respondent is not satisfactory observed thus:- "However, there is no indication in the reply as to whether all the candidates belonging to OBC category, who had obtained higher marks than the cut-off meant for general category, were called for PET." 9. An additional affidavit has been filed by the respondents in pursuance of the order aforesaid indicating therein that candidates belonging to OBC category, who had obtained more marks than the general category cut-off, but less than the cut-off marks of the OBC category were called for PST/PET. 10. Mr. V.R. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the selection process in question is vitiated, inasmuch as, the cut-off for OBC category was declared as 51.875 marks, but Bhajan Lal, having secured 49.875 marks, has been selected. 11. 10. Mr. V.R. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the selection process in question is vitiated, inasmuch as, the cut-off for OBC category was declared as 51.875 marks, but Bhajan Lal, having secured 49.875 marks, has been selected. 11. It was also contended that the respondents were required to give detail of all the OBC candidates, who were called for PST/PET. 12. Mr. Kailash Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that the petitioner has levelled allegations regarding selection of Bhajan Lal, however has not impleaded him as a party. It was also argued that the inquiry, which the petitioner has sought in the present writ petition, is not permissible, as instant petition is not a writ in the nature of Public Interest Litigation. 13. Pointing out that the petitioner has secured much less marks (45.875 marks), than the cut-off marks of OBC category (51.875 marks) and general category (49.375), it was argued that petition deserved to be dismissed. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 15. In view of specific averments in the additional affidavit filed by the respondents, as all the candidates belonging to OBC category, who have secured more marks than cut-off of General category and less than the cut-off of OBC category were called for PST/PET, this Court does not find any infirmity in the process of selection. 16. The petitioner has admittedly secured 45.875 marks, much below the cut-off. None of petitioner's rights have been shown to be affected. 17. None of the candidates having secured less marks than the petitioner, have been given appointment; even Bhajan Lal has secured 49.875, obviously much higher than the marks obtained by the petitioner. 18. That apart, in view of the fact that all the seats have been filled up and in absence of allegation that any candidate lower in merit to the petitioner has been selected, no indulgence is warranted. 19. The writ petition is thus, dismissed. 20. Stay petition also stands dismissed.