Hon’ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—Heard Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Badrul Hasan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The trivial question involved in this writ petition is to the effect that whether it would be justified to interfere with the examination at the behest of a candidate who had appeared in the examination without any protest and was declared unsuccessful.

3. In the instant writ petition, petitioner-Renu Singh has challenged the order dated 2.7.2010 passed by the opposite party No. 2-Secretary, U.P. Police Recruitment & Promotion Board, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as “Board”), whereby she has been declared unsuccessful in the U.P. Police Constable Recruitment Examination, 2009 on the ground that after reevaluation of the answer-sheet, she had obtained only 112.81 marks and had failed to obtain eligible marks in every part of the question papers. During the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner has filed an amendment application (C.M. Application No. 15697 of 2012), which was allowed vide order dated 30.4.2012. By means of the amendment, the petitioner has assailed the eligibility clause of advertisement dated 25.6.2009, whereby the eligibility marks in every subject has been fixed as 33%.

4. Shorn off unnecessary details, the facts of the case are as under :

Pursuant to the advertisement published in the year 2009 for selection of Constable in U.P. Civil Police, the petitioner applied in General Category. She appeared in the examination with Roll No. 24050326. The Board published the final result of the examination on its website, whereupon the petitioner came to know that she has obtained 112.8069 marks out of 200 marks and has been declared as not qualified.

5. According to the petitioner, due to the fault of the Board, she had failed to solve all the question paper because more than 20 questions were found incorrect in question paper. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner was confused and more time was consumed in solving the wrong question. However, after declaration of the result, the Board invited objections from the candidate(s). In pursuance thereof, the petitioner filed her objections before the Board but as no heed was paid, she had approached this Court through writ petition No. 3615 of 2010 (SS) : Renu Singh v. State of U.P. and others. This Court, vide order dated 28.5.2010, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Board to consider and decide the representation/objection of the petitioner dated 20.5.2010 by a speaking and reasoned order.

6. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 28.5.2010, the Board has considered the representation/objection dated 20.5.2010 preferred by the petitioner and vide order dated 2.7.2010, the petitioner was informed that after revaluation of the answer-sheet, though she had obtained 112.81 marks but she had failed to obtain eligible marks in every part of the question papers, therefore, she is not qualified for U.P. Police Constable Recruitment Examination, 2009. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, challenging the order dated 2.7.2010.

7. As averred above, during the pendency of the present writ petition, through amendment, the petitioner has challenged the clause of advertisement dated 25.6.2009, which prescribed that the eligibility marks in every subject shall be 33 percent.

8. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Ran Vijay Singh is that the petitioner had obtained 112.80 marks which is higher than cut of merit marks in General Woman Category as last cut of merit in General Woman Category was 95 marks. Therefore, the Board had wrongly decided the objection of the petitioner by saying that the petitioner had failed to obtain eligible marks i.e. 33% in every part of the question paper.

9. Further submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that U.P. Civil Police Constable and Head Constable Rules