L CE thdates, who had qualified the same were subjected to psychometric e and further the candidates qualified/declareci fit in psychometric test, were required to appear for the• personal interview. All the four petitioners have applied for the said post. Mr. Rajesh Dagar, petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6436/2015 had. appeared in the Aptitude and Technical Knowledge test, which he qua1ifid but did not qualify the psychometric test. Similarly, Mr. Rahul Panchal, petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6705/2015. applied and appeared for Aptitude and Technical Knowledge test but did not qualify both the papers. Mr. Prasamia C. Nikhade, petitioner No.1 in W.P.(C) No.6487/2015 even bough applied for the post but did not appear for the Aptitude and Technical Knowledge test. Similarly, Mr. —V Ajay Dilip Chaudhari, petitioner No.2 in W.P.(C) No.6487/2015 did not qualify the Aptitude and Technical Knowledge test. J5. It is his submission that the petitioner namely Rajesh Dagar, having failed in the psychometric test in the snbsequent selection, he cannot b appointed, even if he succeeds in this petition as psychometric test has become very relevant in the process of selection in view of a recent incident happened in Germany. According to him, the said petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Similarly, the other three petitioners would also not be entitled to any relief. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I note the primary W.P(C) No. 6436/2015 and connected matters
