JUDGMENT : HARISH KUMAR, J. The Cluster of the petitioners in both the cases are represented through Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned Advocate for the petitioners with M/s Ritika Rani, learned Advocate. The Bihar Police Sub-ordinate Service Commission is represented through Mr. P. K. Shahi, learned Senior Advocate. Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, learned SC-8 appears on behalf of the State. 2. The entire selection process as well as appointment of the selected candidates against Advertisement No. 1/2019 is put to challenge in the premise of the same being suffered from the vice of serious irregularities. The petitioners sought a direction upon the concerned respondents to produce question booklet, OMR sheet and answer key pertaining to Preliminary and Mains examination conducted in relation to Advertisement No. 1/2019. The petitioners are aggrieved with the merit list of Bihar Police Sub-Inspector published on 17.06.2021, as contained in Annexure-9 Series against the advertisement No. 1/2019 for the Post of Police Sub-Inspector, Sergeant, Assistant Superintendent Jail (Direct Recruitment), Assistant Superintendent Jail (Ex-Servicemen) conducted by the Bihar Police Sub-ordinate Service Commission as well as consequential appointment letters, as contained in Annexures- 12, 13 and 14 of the writ petition, as the same are prepared and issued in complete defiance of the prescription of the Advertisement as well as the concerned Rules; Moreover, the cut off mark of 75.8% under the General Category has been reduced to 75% in a most arbitrary manner after ousting the meritorious candidates and thereby violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 3. Besides the aforenoted reliefs, the petitioners also sought a declaration from this Court to hold that the entire process of selection and appointment against Advertisement No. 1/2019 is in complete disregard of the terms and conditions incorporated in the Advertisement. Apart from the process of selection being nontransparent and unreasonable to extend favour to undeserving persons and thereby misused the office. The petitioners in substance sought a direction upon the respondents to disclose the reason for not declaring the petitioners successful despite scoring more than the cut off marks in mains written examination and further to declare the petitioners successful for the post advertised and appoint them as per their merit position and to extend all consequential service benefits. 4. The petitioners in substance sought a direction upon the respondents to disclose the reason for not declaring the petitioners successful despite scoring more than the cut off marks in mains written examination and further to declare the petitioners successful for the post advertised and appoint them as per their merit position and to extend all consequential service benefits. 4. To adjudicate the claim of the petitioners, necessary facts, as culled out from the materials available on record, are as follows: (i) To facilitate the selection of the candidates to the post of Group ‘C’ of the Home (Police) Department and posts of other Department under the State Government of Bihar, the Government of Bihar constituted Bihar Police Sub-Ordinate Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’) under the Bihar Police Sub-Ordinate Service Commission, Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2016’). In terms of the Act, 2016, the Commission is empowered to select the candidates for appointment to the cadre post enumerated in the appended schedule according to the prescribed procedure under the Service Cadre Rules of respective posts/departments. As per Sub-Clause 2 of Sub- Section 9 of the Act, 2016, it was specifically provided that the Commission may hold a Combined Competitive Examination for the post with similar eligibility criteria. Subsequent to the formation of the Commission, several advertisements for selection of the candidates on various posts of Group-C of the Home (Police) Department have been published by the Commission. In similar manner the captioned Advertisement No. 1/2019 was published on 21.08.2019 by the Commission in the light of the requisition sent by the State Government. Altogether 2446 vacancies were advertised for appointment on the post of Police Sub-Inspector, Sergeant, Assistant Superintendent Jail (Direct Recruitment), Assistant Superintendent Jail (Ex-Servicemen). (ii) In terms of the Advertisement, out of 2446 posts, 2064 posts were for Police Sub-Inspector, 215 posts were for Sergeant, 125 posts were for Assistant Superintendent Jail (Direct Recruitment) and 42 posts were for Assistant Superintendent Jail (Ex-Servicemen). The entire selection process was primarily divided into two written examination i.e. preliminary examination and thereafter mains examination. (ii) In terms of the Advertisement, out of 2446 posts, 2064 posts were for Police Sub-Inspector, 215 posts were for Sergeant, 125 posts were for Assistant Superintendent Jail (Direct Recruitment) and 42 posts were for Assistant Superintendent Jail (Ex-Servicemen). The entire selection process was primarily divided into two written examination i.e. preliminary examination and thereafter mains examination. In terms of the Advertisement, in the Preliminary examination, the Commission was required to select candidates 20 times of the vacancy/post advertised and in the Mains examination, the Commission was required to select candidate 6 times of vacancy/post advertised for participation in the Physical Evaluation Test (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PET examination’). The final result of the successful candidates of the Combined (Mains) Competitive Examination and PET examination was to be published cadre wise in a consolidated integrated and reserved category in order of the merit. (iii) The petitioners having found requisite qualification, applied against the Advertisement No.1/2019 for recruitment to the post of Police Sub-Inspector, Sergeant, Assistant Superintendent Jail (Direct Recruitment), Assistant Superintendent Jail (Ex-Servicemen).The petitioners were issued admit card and they appeared in Combined Preliminary Examination, which was held on 22.12.2019 and declared successful. The copy of the result of the Preliminary Examination dated 28.01.2020 is placed as Annexure-4 Series to the writ petition. Upon being successful, the petitioners were further received Admit Card for appearing in Combined Mains Examination and finally the petitioners along with 15,231 candidates were declared successful, the result of which was published on 16.01.2021. For recruitment to the post of Police Sub-Inspector, Sergeant, Assistant Superintendent Jail (Direct Recruitment), Assistant Superintendent Jail (Ex-Servicemen), the cut off marks for General Category (Male) was shown as 75.8% and they were declared eligible and asked for PET Examination scheduled to be held between 22.03.2021 to 12.04.2021. The result of Combined Mains Examination is placed on record as Annexure-6 Series to the writ petition. (iv) The petitioners along with other successful candidates duly participated in the PET on 17.06.2021, final merit list was published by the Commission on its website indicating the category wise cut off marks. The name of the petitioners did not find place in the list of successful candidates in final merit list published on 17.06.2021, even after attaining higher marks than the cut off marks fixed as 75.8% published by the Commission under the General Category (Male). Hence, the writ petitions. 5. Mr. The name of the petitioners did not find place in the list of successful candidates in final merit list published on 17.06.2021, even after attaining higher marks than the cut off marks fixed as 75.8% published by the Commission under the General Category (Male). Hence, the writ petitions. 5. Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners harping upon the alleged infirmities in the selection process arising out of Advertisement No. 1/2019 has primarily contended that after coming into existence of the Commission, the Government of Bihar in exercise of power provided under Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, read with Sections 55 and 97 of the Bihar Police Act, 2007 has made certain amendments by issuance of notification dated 31.08.2017. The copy of the notification dated 31.08.2017 has been placed on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 6. After taking this Court through the relevant prescriptions of the notification, it has been submitted before this Court that in terms of Rule 654(d) of the Bihar Police Manual after conducting Mains Competitive Examination and PET, service cadre wise combined competitive result was to be published under consolidated integrated cadre wise and reserved category wise in order of merit, but the same has not been done. The Commission has not recommended the names of the candidates as per the reserved category wise and merit wise in descending order according to requisition received from the Director General of Police. The appointment letter issued by the respondents, as contained in Annexures-12, 13 and 14 is in complete disregard to the prescriptions provided under Rule 655(d) of the Bihar Police Manual. 7. It is the admitted position that the petitioners were declared successful in Preliminary as well as Mains Examination and also performed very well in the PET and have secured more marks than the cut off marks, as was fixed at 75.8% under the General Category (Male), but to the utter dismay and surprise, it was arbitrarily reduced to 75% and without assigning any reason arbitrarily did not include the name of the petitioners in the final merit list. The petitioners sought an information from the Public Information Officer, as also requested to produce OMR Answer sheet, total marks obtained in the Combined Mains Examination along with the answer keys, based upon which the Commission evaluated the score card and to disclose the reason for declaring the petitioners unsuccessful in the final merit list, but the same has not been done. The petitioners along with others preferred C.W.J.C. No.13689 of 2021, however, it came to be dismissed owing to non-joinder of necessary and proper party at lest in the representative capacity, reserving liberty to the petitioners to file fresh petition. 8. It has been apprised to this Court that the information received under the Right to Information Act, 2005, indicates that the auction of answer book is in process and no information will be supplied, which is clearly suggestive of the fact that the Commission has acted in nontransparent manner in completing the selection process and issuance of appointment letters. Learned Advocate would thus submit that every selection process shall be conducted in a manner free from doubt and the candidate shall have confidence in the selection process in the larger interest, however, the petitioners are still not aware of the reason for not being declared successful. 9. Learned Advocate for the petitioners further reminded this Court that it is settled principle of law that Right to Information Act, which is basically founded in the right to know is intrinsic part of liberty guaranteed under Article 19(1(a) of the Constitution. To support the aforesaid contention, reliance has been placed on a Full Bench Decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Secretary General, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal , reported in AIR 2010 DELHI 159 . The decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Central Board of Sec. Education & Anr. vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors , reported in ( 2011) 8 SCC 497 has also been cited to emphasize that the right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. If the answer-keys are kept secret and not published along with the result of the test. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. If the answer-keys are kept secret and not published along with the result of the test. It would not be correct way of looking at these matters which involve the future of hundreds of students who are aspirants for admission to professional courses and thus remedy would have been worse than the disease because, so many students would have had to suffer the injustice in silence as observed in the case of Kanpur University and Others Vs. Samir Gupta and Others , reported in (1983) 4 SCC 309 10. Much emphasis has been given that the marks obtained by the petitioners are more than the cut off marks than many appointed persons, hence, the respondents are duty bound to recommend the name of the petitioners for appointment against Advertisement No. 1/2019 on appropriate posts, as per the merit list. Slashing down the cut off marks from 75.8% to 75% clearly shows that the respondents have tinkered with the rules of game in so far as the prescription of eligibility criteria and the procedure for selection are concerned. 11. Heavy reliance has been placed on the Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak and Others Vs. Rajasthan High Court and Others , reported in ( 2025) 2 SCC 1 that the “rules of game” cannot be changed after commencement of the recruitment process. Reliance has also been placed on a decision rendered in the case of B edanga Talukdar vs Saifudaullah Khan & Ors . Reported in (2011) 12 SCC 85 as well as State of Bihar & Ors vs Mithilesh Kumar , reported in (2010) 13 SCC 467 , to fortify the contention that the terms and conditions of the Advertisement has to be necesarily acted upon. Arbitrary fixation of the cut off marks in the final merit list in absence of any stipulation in the advertisement is bad in law and for the said contention, reliance has been placed on a decision in the case of Amrit Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 280 12. Dispelling the aforenoted contention, learned Senior Advocate, Mr. State of Jharkhand , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 280 12. Dispelling the aforenoted contention, learned Senior Advocate, Mr. P. K. Shahi, for the Commission, has contended that the entire selection process has been finalized in conformity with the terms of the advertisement and the Rules applicable thereto. As per the advertisement, the Commission was required to select the candidates 20 times of the vacancy/post advertised in the Mains examination and the Commission was required to select the candidate 6 times of vacancy/post advertised for participation in the PET. So far the PET is concerned, the eligibility criteria for being successful in the PET for the post of Police Sub-Inspector, Sergeant, Assistant Superintendent Jail (Direct Recruitment) was one and the same, as it was the post for the Police Sub-Inspector and so far the Assistant Superintendent Jail (Ex-Servicemen) is concerned, there was no requirement for the candidates to undergo PET. The candidates for the post of Assistant Superintendent Jail (Ex-Servicemen) were only required to pass preliminary as well as mains examination. 13. Referring to the averments made in the counter affidavit, it is contended that altogether 6,15,000 candidates applied for participating in the Combined Competitive Examination. However, the total 5,85,829 candidates had participated in the Preliminary Examination, out of which 4,75,416 candidates were selected and allowed for participating in Mains Examination. In the Combined Mains Examination conducted by the Commission altogether 15231 candidates were selected and allowed to participate in the PET for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Sergeant and Assistant Superintendent Jail (Direct recruitment). 14. Referring to the result of Mains Examination published on 16.01.2021, it is submitted that altogether 453 candidates had passed the Mains Examination for the post of Assistant Superintendent Jail (Ex-Servicemen). The final result of which was duly published on 08.03.2021 itself recommending the names of 40 candidates for being appointed against 42 posts. The Commission had declared the cut off marks in all the categories as is apparent from the final merit list. After conducting necessary PET on the schedule date and time, the Commission published final result on 17.06.2021 recommending total 2062 candidates for being appointed on the post of Police Sub-Inspector, 215 candidates for the post of Sergeant and 125 candidates for the post of Assistant Superintendent Jail (Direct Recruitment). 15. Mr. After conducting necessary PET on the schedule date and time, the Commission published final result on 17.06.2021 recommending total 2062 candidates for being appointed on the post of Police Sub-Inspector, 215 candidates for the post of Sergeant and 125 candidates for the post of Assistant Superintendent Jail (Direct Recruitment). 15. Mr. Shahi, learned Senior Advocate, further argued that while declaring the result of the Mains Examination and final selection result, the Commission had also declared the cut off marks in all the categories; and the candidates, who had cleared Mains Examination were required to participate in the PET, as per their choice of post. The final result itself had given the data of the candidates, who were selected for PET and their performance event wise. Bare perusal of the said data, it would be evident that 2062 candidates for the post of Sub-Inspector, 215 candidates for the post of Sergeant and 125 candidates for the post of Assistant Superintendent of Jail (direct recruitment) were selected. After publication of the final result, marks of all the candidates, who had participated in the examination, pursuant to Advertisement No.1/2019, was duly uploaded on the Website of the Commission on 30.07.2021, with a notice providing link for perusal of the marks by the candidates, activated from 01.08.2021 to 15.08.2021. The copy of such notice is placed on record as Annexure-E to the counter affidavit. Referring thereto, it has further been submitted that direction was given to all the candidates to download the mark-sheet from the website of the Commission, as after 15.08.2021, the link will become de-active. 16. The Commission in order to dispel the confusion among the candidates regarding their non-selection, as many candidates were found that despite having acquired cut off marks, but their name did not find in the final list dated 17.06.2021, issued a notice in its website on 12.08.2021. Information was given to all the candidates that in their marks- sheet itself, in the remarks column it was mentioned; “not selected for the post of PSI, ASJ, unfit for the post of Sergeant”, meaning thereby such candidates are having lesser marks than the candidates selected on the post of Sub-Inspector and on the post of Assistant Superintendent Jail, therefore, their selection was not made on the post of Police Sub-Inspector and Assistant Superintendent Jail. Since those candidates have also failed in PET for the post of Sergeant, hence such candidates even after having more marks than the cut off marks have not been selected on account of being failed for the post of Sergeant. 17. Adverting to the aforesaid facts, learned Senior Advocate for the Commission, thus contended that the claim of the petitioners to be appointed, as they are having more marks than the cut off marks declared by the Commission is absolutely misconceived. In order to crystallize the entire matters, a chart has been prepared with respect to five writ petitioners, who have annexed their admit cards with a view to demonstrate over all rank and the rank of last candidate selected on the post of Police Sub-Inspector, Assistant Superintendent Jail and Sergeant. Similarly a chart, containing over all rank of the private respondents has also been placed on record through the counter affidavit that the writ petitioners are far below in over all rank than the private respondents. 18. The contention of the petitioners that they are not getting OMR sheet and other documents under Right to Information Act is completely refuted by stating on oath that the Commission is providing OMR sheet as well as question paper and all other relevant information to the candidates, who have approached the Commission under the RTI Act, 2005. 19. With regard to the contention of the petitioners in respect of non-publication of category wise result, it is answered that as per reservation policy, many of the candidates for reserved category got placed in the General Category on the basis of their own merit position in the Preliminary and Mains Examination; thus when the result of the Preliminary and Mains Examination was processed on the basis of 20 times and 6 times of the advertised posts and the selected candidates of Mains Examination upon clearing the PET got selected on the basis of their merit position in open merit category as well as in their respective category. However, none of the petitioners are able to demonstrate that they have secured higher marks than the selected candidates. Identical issue has also come up for consideration before this Court in the case of Bihar Police Subordinate Service Commission Vs. However, none of the petitioners are able to demonstrate that they have secured higher marks than the selected candidates. Identical issue has also come up for consideration before this Court in the case of Bihar Police Subordinate Service Commission Vs. Ramesh Kumar & Ors ., reported in 2019 (2) PLJR 416 wherein the learned Division Bench of this Court has been pleased to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, inter alia, on the ground the students having become unsuccessful, cannot be permitted to turn around and challenge the procedure of selection on the ground of unfairness without any relevant materials in respect thereof. The aforesaid proposition has also been emphasized in the case of 20. Mr. Seho Shankar Prasad, learned SC-8 appearing on behalf of the State respondents has adopted the contentions advanced on behalf of the Commission. 21. This Court has anxiously heard the learned Advocate for the respective parties and also perused the materials available on record. 22. Before delving into the merit of this case, it would be apt to highlight the legal position that when a candidate appears at the examination without objection and subsequently he is found to be unsuccessful, challenge to the process is precluded, came to be crystallized in umpteen number of the decisions of the Apex Court. In the case of Chandra Prakash Tiwari and Ors vs Shakuntala Shukla and Ors. reported in (2002) 6 SCC 127 , the Apex Court has observed that question of entertaining a petition challenging the said examination would not arise where a candidate has appeared and participated after accepting all the terms and conditions, but subsequently contended that the process of examination was unfair or that there was lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable. 23. In Union of India & Others vs S. Vinodh Kumar & Others , reported in (2007) 8 SCC 100 , the Apex Court has held that it is well-settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same. 23. In Union of India & Others vs S. Vinodh Kumar & Others , reported in (2007) 8 SCC 100 , the Apex Court has held that it is well-settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same. Emphasizing the aforenoted principle in the case of Amlan Jyoti Borooah vs State of Assam & Ors , reported in ( 2009) 3 SCC 227 , the Apex Court further held that the candidates knowing fully well the procedure laid down in the selection process were not entitled to question the same, upon being declared to be unsuccessful. In Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar & Ors. , reported in (2010) 12 SCC 576 the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterating the principle as laid down in the case of Madan Lal and Ors. Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors. , (1995) 3 SCC 486 and various other cases, has observed as follows: “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. 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..” 24. There is no quarrel with regard to settled position that the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulation which need to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the Advertisement unless such power is specifically reserved in the relevant rules and/or any advertisement. There is no quarrel with regard to settled position that the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulation which need to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the Advertisement unless such power is specifically reserved in the relevant rules and/or any advertisement. Even if such power is existed, which should only to be exercised after giving due publicity in order to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete, failing which it would contrary to the mandate of quality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India vide Bedanga Talukdar vs Saifudaullah Khan & Ors ., reported in (2011) 12 SCC 85 25. The question whether the Rules of the game could be changed in midway was considered by the Apex Court in various decisions and recently has further been crystallized by a Constitution Bench decision in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak (supra). “42. We, therefore, answer the reference in the following terms: (1) Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies; (2) Eligibility criteria for being placed in the Select List, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness; (3) The decision in K. Manjusree (supra) lays down good law and is not in conflict with the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha (supra). Subash Chander Marwaha (supra) deals with the right to be appointed from the Select List whereas K. Manjusree (supra) deals with the right to be placed in the Select List. The two cases therefore deal with altogether different issues; (4) Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, non-discriminatory/non-arbitrary and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. The two cases therefore deal with altogether different issues; (4) Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, non-discriminatory/non-arbitrary and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. (5) Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility. However, where the Rules are non- existent, or silent, administrative instructions may fill in the gaps; (6) Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment. The State or its instrumentality for bona fide reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies. However, if vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the select list.” 26. Trite it is that the entire selection process and the appointment is to be made as per the procedure prescribed under the relevant Advertisement and the Rules; non-adherence to which makes the entire selection process vulnerable to interfere; such issue has been duly explicited and emphasized by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various decisions, one of which is Goa Public Service Commission vs Pankaj Rane & Ors. reported in (2022) 11 SCC 742 27. In the background of the aforenoted settled legal position, coming to the facts of the case at hand, it is true that in terms of the Advertisement calling 20 times the number of vacancy after Preliminary Examination and 6 times the number of vacancy after Mains Examination was done, the petitioners being successful in Preliminary Examination were called for in Mains Examination and their name find place in the list of successful candidate. 28. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, the challenge to the procedure adopted in conducting Preliminary and Mains Examination cannot be sustained only on account of the fact that finally the petitioners did not find place in the final merit list. It is only after the petitioners were unsuccessful in getting the place in the final merit list, they filed the writ petition. They did not raise a challenge either to Advertisement or Preliminary and Mains Examination, presumably because they were all successful in the examination. 29. It is only after the petitioners were unsuccessful in getting the place in the final merit list, they filed the writ petition. They did not raise a challenge either to Advertisement or Preliminary and Mains Examination, presumably because they were all successful in the examination. 29. The allegation of unfair on account of not uploading the answer key and information providing answer sheet does not appear to be palatable and justified in view of the specific averment made in the counter affidavit. The admission on the part of the Commission that the Commission is providing OMR sheets as well as question paper and other relevant necessary information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. All the more, this issue has been completely watered down by various decisions of the Apex Court. In the case of Aditya Bandopadhyay (supra) , the Court ruled that it is always open to a candidate to clear his doubt by moving an application under Right to Information Act for supply of the answer book in order to raise any such grievance. 30. This Court also does not find that after issuance of advertisement at any stage, the rule of game is tinkered with by reducing the cut off marks from 75.8% to 75%. It is well explained by the Commission that in the process, total 15,231 candidates along with 357 Ex-servicemen candidates were selected for PET, out of which only 6670 candidates finally qualified in the PET in all respect, including the document verification, which has been clearly mentioned in the final result itself and on account of the said facts, the cut off marks of the final list was round off, as more meritorious candidates having secured more marks were disqualified in the PET, which resulted in the change of the cut off marks in the final merit list. Thus, in any event reducing the cut off marks from 75.8% to 75% cannot be said to be arbitrary and illegal; apart from the same was in larger interest of the candidates and no prejudice is caused to the petitioners. 31. In the opinion of this Court, with due respect, the ruling of the Constitution bench in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak (Supra) and other documents cited by the learned Advocate for the petitioners on this line do not get attracted in the facts of this case. 31. In the opinion of this Court, with due respect, the ruling of the Constitution bench in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak (Supra) and other documents cited by the learned Advocate for the petitioners on this line do not get attracted in the facts of this case. This Court finds substance in the stand of the Commission, while furnishing a chart showing comparative marks between the petitioners and the private respondents. The petitioners have failed to produce any material to made out a case that they have secured more marks than the private respondents, who have arrayed in the representative capacity. 32. From the chart brought on record through the counter affidavit, it is explicit that over all rank of the petitioners are much below than the rank of last candidate selected for the post of Police Sub-Inspector and Assistant Superintendent Jail; and moreover, the candidates, who have also failed in the PET for the post of Sergeant, such candidates even after having more marks than the cut off marks have not been selected on account of being failed for the post of Sergeant. 33. On the basis of the pleadings and the materials on record, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners have failed to point out any illegality or irregularity or lapse in the selection process, which warrant any interference in the matter. 34. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and the settled position in law, both the writ petitions failed. 35. The parties shall bear their own cost. 36. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.