ORAL ORDER

Heard learned advocate Mr.Ramnandan Singh for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.K.M. Antani for the respondent – State who appeared upon service of copy of petition in advance. 2. The four petitioners who underwent the process of selection for the post of Armed and Unarmed Lok Rakshak pursuant to advertisement dated 14/15th August, 2018 have filed the present petition invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking to set aside the entire selection process pursuant to the said advertisement. Their case is that serious illegalities were committed by the respondent authorities in the process of selection more particularly that the sticker was not put on the answer-sheet and later the applications were invited for correction of answer-sheet Code and Roll Number after holding the written examination.

2.1 It is the case that adoption of such a course was contrary to Instruction No.18.16 of the advertisement. It was sought to be argued on behalf of the petitioners that on several answer-sheets sticker was not put. It was submitted that thus name and role number was accessible of any person. It was submitted that subsequently the Lok Rakshak Recruitment Board stated on-line that if in the answer-sheet code any error is committed, application could be made to the Board in that regard.

3. The case therefore appears to be that in the entire examination process for which result is yet to be declared, there was a greater room to commit mal- practice, since, according to the petitioners, sticker was not put on the Code Number. Though the case is on such premise, the petitioners have failed to produce any material in substantiation. Not only that any supportive material is not available anywhere from the record of the petition, the pleadings also, when attentively seen, are too non- specific and too vague to be taken note of or to be countenanced for such a contention.

3.1 In paragraph 2 of the petition it is stated that since answer-sheet was without putting sticker on the name of the candidates “the answer-sheet would give opportunity for doing favouritism”. It was pleaded further in paragraph 3.4 that “the petitioners appeared in the examination but they were not happy in the manner in which the sticker was not put”. The petitioners have thus expressed a bare apprehension that this would give opportunity for favouritism. It is not stated that as to on whose answer-sheet sticker was missing. Referring to the on-line instructions, it was averred to plead that “there is always possibility to favouritism and therefore, the entire selection process is required to be set aside”.

4. It was submitted vehemently by learned advocate for the petitioners that inviting representations regarding correction in the answer- sheet was not a usual step and the authority could not have adopted such course of action. Reliance was placed on Clause 18.16 to further the case of the petitioners is not well-conceived since the said application, as could be read from the copy annexed, inter alia provides that if any candidate is wrongly selected, such selection shall be liable to be cancelled. Learned Assistant Government Pleader pointed out that the said Instruction No.18.16 pertains to the applications to made by the candidates and is not in relation to the answer-sheet in any manner.

5. When the petitioners want the entire selection process to be set aside on the ground of commission of alleged mal-practices or illegalities, specific pleadings about the alleged irregularity are necessary. The premise of the present petition lacks the requisite pleadings of specific nature, nor he petition contains the details showing or suggesting in unequivocal way, the irregularity much less illegality. In absence of such details, it is not possible to hold even prima facie that there was a vitiation in the process.

6. The whole basis of the petition, as is reflected from the pleadings and the tenor thereof, are apprehensive and presumptuo