Counsel for the petitioner referring to communication dated 1st September, 2016, asserted that the vacancies of Chemistry subject which were earlier reflected as 12+4+1 for Scheduled Caste were subsequently reduced to 10+2+1. However, the petitioner was not aggrieved for her name was already included in the list of eligible shortlisted candidates for the interview, and therefore, she did not raise any grievance. But, subsequently, by issuance of another list of eligible candidates shortlisted vide communication of dated 30th May, 2018, whereby the criteria for shortlisting was enhanced, restricting the number of candidates to be interviewed resulting into the exclusion of the petitioner; therefore, the petitioner has assailed the action of the respondentRPSC pleading the ground of reduction of the vacancies of scheduled castes. Be that as it may, the petitioner was not aggrieved of any change by way of reduction/increase of number of vacancies of Scheduled Castes, so far her name was included in the list of candidates short-listed for interview. Hence, the petitioner now cannot be allowed to assail the same criteria and action of the respondents only when she has been excluded from the list of eligible candidates shortlisted by enhanced criteria, uniformly applied to all the participating candidates including the petitioner.
