ORDER : 1. Having remained partly successful in the selection process pursuant to advertisement dated 09.04.2007 (Annex.1), the petitioner (working as Platoon Commander) herein seeks appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector (instead of Platoon Commander) in general category seeking parity with her similarly situated counter-parts, who have been given appointment by virtue of this Court judgment dated 20.09.2011 in SBCWP No. 3705/2009. 2. Briefly speaking relevant facts are that the respondents advertised 151 posts for Sub-Inspector (A.P.), 87 posts for Platoon Commander (Sub-Inspector R.A.C.), and 6 posts for Sub-Inspector (M.B.C.). Among these, 22 posts in the Sub-Inspector (A.P.) cadre, 13 posts in the Platoon Commander (Sub-Inspector R.A.C.) cadre, and 1 post in the Sub-Inspector (M.B.C.) cadre were reserved for OBC candidates. In response to this advertisement, the petitioner applied for the position and took the examination. In the final result her total score was reduced by 5 marks due to the scaling process. 2.1. However, vide a judgment dated 20.9.2011 in SBCWP No. 3705/2009 (Ramnarayan Bhanwariya Vs. State of Rajasthan), this Court struck down the scaling formula adopted by the respondents, finding it to be unjust. Subsequently, the respondents issued a communication to the petitioner on 13.7.2012, calling her for a medical examination. She pleads that despite successfully clearing all stages of the selection process, the respondents have yet to offer her appointment on the post. Hence, this petition. 3. The stand taken by the respondents in their reply inter alia is that the last cut-off marks for general (Female) were 263, whereas, according to the petitioner's own assertion, she secured only 235 marks. According to her marksheet, the petitioner secured 85 marks in Hindi, but the scaled marks were mentioned as 80, thus reducing her aggregate score by 5 marks due to scaling. 3.1. That SBCWP No. 3705/2009 (Ramnarayan Bhanwariya Vs. State of Rajasthan) along with four other identical writ petitions were all allowed on 20.09.2011 by this Court. In compliance with the judgment, RPSC issued an amended merit list, and in that process, the petitioner was also called to appear for a medical examination. However, the letter clearly mentioned that calling for the medical examination and verification of character, and being found fit, would not necessarily mean the issuance of the appointment order. 3.2. In compliance with the judgment, RPSC issued an amended merit list, and in that process, the petitioner was also called to appear for a medical examination. However, the letter clearly mentioned that calling for the medical examination and verification of character, and being found fit, would not necessarily mean the issuance of the appointment order. 3.2. Regarding the judgment dated 24.07.2012 in SBCWP No. 6350/2012, it is based on the observations made in the judgment dated 20.09.2011 in SBCWP No. 3705/2009. The relief granted was specifically in persona and not in rem. Hence petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. In response, the stand taken by the petitioner in her rejoinder is that the petitioner’s original merit number was 666 (Roll No. 220214), but after the judgment, her merit improved to 580 in the amended list issued on 21.02.2012 (Annexure-R/R/1). Other candidates at numbers 581, 582, 586, 593, 604, 616, and 624 of merit list, placed below here, were appointed. On 23.04.2012 (Annexure-R/R/2), the respondents issued a list of 30 candidates for medical examination, with the petitioner ranked 27th. The respondents' assertion that they did not intend to call the petitioner is thus misleading. 5. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 6. In sum and substance, apart from other arguments and grounds raised in the petition, the petitioner's case primarily hinges on two pivotal points: (A) the assertion that respondent No.4, who obtained lesser marks than the petitioner, was still given the benefit of appointment in the general category; (B) there are certain other candidates, as reflected in the office order dated 23.04.2012 (Annex.RR/3), who had obtained lesser marks than the petitioner but were still given the benefit of appointment in the general category. 7. First and foremost, addressing the second part of the argument, it is clear that an affidavit has been sworn on oath by the competent officials, stating that the cut-off marks in the general category for the post of Sub-Inspector were 263, whereas the petitioner secured much less i.e. 235 marks. 8. 7. First and foremost, addressing the second part of the argument, it is clear that an affidavit has been sworn on oath by the competent officials, stating that the cut-off marks in the general category for the post of Sub-Inspector were 263, whereas the petitioner secured much less i.e. 235 marks. 8. Furthermore, it is evident that while the petitioner originally secured 85 marks in Hindi, subsequently, due to the scaling process, which was applied uniformly to all candidates, her marks were reduced to her detriment from 85 to 80, thus placing her even lower in merit than initially, when the final list was prepared based on her original marks in Hindi. 9. Even if, for the sake of argument, it is assumed that the petitioner was wrongly downgraded in the merit list by reducing her marks in Hindi, I am of the view that the petitioner would still not benefit in any way to secure the appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector, as against the Platoon Commander position on which she is currently working. Adding 5 marks to her aggregate would only increase her total to 240 instead of 235, which is still well below the benchmark of 263. 10. Returning to the first point, as noted above, at the very outset, it appears that the petitioner has filed the writ petition based on the office order dated 23.04.2012, which, in fact, was never implemented. Subsequently, vide an office order dated 03.07.2012, the operation and effect of the said order was stayed. 11. The subsequent order dated 03.07.2012 is neither under challenge before this Court nor, for that matter, does the petitioner appear to be aggrieved by it, as no steps were taken to challenge the same in either any collateral proceedings or in the instant one. 12. Moreover, upon a Court query, it transpires that respondent No.4 was actually appointed in the OBC category. Same is borne out from her appointment letter dated 19.08.2011, a copy of which tendered during the hearing has been taken on record. 13. On a Court query, learned counsel for the respondents states that he is under instructions to state at the bar that this is the only appointment letter issued, pursuant to which respondent No.4 was appointed in service, and reliance on the order dated23.04.2012 is entirely misplaced. 14. 13. On a Court query, learned counsel for the respondents states that he is under instructions to state at the bar that this is the only appointment letter issued, pursuant to which respondent No.4 was appointed in service, and reliance on the order dated23.04.2012 is entirely misplaced. 14. Therefore, the petitioner was seemingly under the impression that respondent No.4 was appointed in the general category despite having secured lesser marks than the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is wrongly claiming entitlement to similar treatment based on her higher merit. She has to compete in her own category. The case in hand being entirely otherwise, there are no grounds to interfere. 15. In the parting, I may hasten to add that, in an additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, reliance has been placed on a list dated 23.04.2012 (Annex.12 at Page 104 of the petition) of 30 candidates, wherein the petitioner's name was also included. Three candidates from the list were appointed and are stated to have obtained lesser marks than the petitioner, the petitioner thus alleges hostile discrimination. 16. It turns out that the aforesaid appointments were made pursuant to an order passed by this Court in SBCWP No.3705/2009, and these are to be treated in personam and not in rem, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents. 17. Once again, reverting to the performance of the petitioner, marks obtained by her are 235, and even if the benefit of the judgment dated 20.09.2011 rendered in Raman Narayan Bhanwreya Vs. State and Anr. SBCWP No. 3705/2009 is extended to the petitioner, pursuant to which three candidates were appointed, the petitioner would still need to outperform the selected candidates. At best, the petitioner would be entitled to 5 additional marks if the scaling of marks were to be set aside in her case. This would raise her aggregate to 240 marks. However, she still would not qualify on the merit list. 18. As an upshot, there are no grounds to interfere. 19. Dismissed. 20. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.