- (1.) HEARD Shri S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Sameer Kalia, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Krishna Chandra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. This Special Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 22.3.2007 passed by he learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition and rejecting the prayer of the appellant for being sent on training for higher post of Reserve Sub- Inspector. The dispute before the learned Single Judge was confined only to the number of vacancies, which were available and for which selected candidates could be sent for training. According to the appellant, there were 142 vacancies but selection was made only for 135 vacancies. Though the appellant secured cut off marks namely 226, his submission is that if the selection would have been made for all vacancies, he could have been easily selected and sent for training. Counter affidavit was filed by the State, in which it was stated that the vacancies were calculated by counting anticipated vacancies also, viz. 30 in number, but in fact only 23 promotions took place and seven anticipated vacancies did not materialize, therefore, only 135 persons were selected for being sent on training. It appears that the appellant had filed one writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 7678 (S/S) of 2006, wherein he moved an application for withdrawal of the same. The said writ petition was dismissed at the admission stage and lastly he filed present writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 512(S/S) of 2007, which was dismissed on the statement given by the counsel for the State regarding actual number of vacancies which were available against which selection was made and selectees were sent for training as already observed. The same stand has been reiterated that out of 142 vacancies only 135 vacancies could be materialized and therefore, the selection for 135 posts has been made. The challenge to the number of vacancies available against which selection could be made for being sent for training on the higher post, normally can not be made by litigants, as it is the calculation made by the department or the State Government, as the case may be. The said calculation has been made on the basis of existing vacancies including the anticipated vacancies. In case it is found, at a later stage, during the selection, that the anticipatory vacancies have not occurred and they were less in number, naturally the vacancy for promotion shall stand decreased. In the instant case also, though the State Government stipulated 142 vacancies keeping in mind anticipated vacancies but since seven of them could not be materialized, therefore, number of vacancies were reduced to 135 vacancies. We do not find any ground to interfere in the calculation of vacancies so made. Shri S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Advocate then submitted that the appellant undisputedly secured cut off marks as 226 and since six candidates had obtained the same marks and only three vacancies being available the appellant has been deprived of the selection, being younger in age. Learned Single Judge has also found that that there were more candidates available of the same merit and the vacancies available being less than the number of such candidates, a non-discriminatory and uniform criteria had to be chalked out, so as to fill up the aforesaid vacancies. The State decided to send the candidates who were elder in age and the appellant, thus, being younger in age could not be selected. At this juncture learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he has filed supplementary affidavit, in which it has been stated that he has not been awarded one mark extra for having knowledge of computers and also marks have not been given to him for his 5 years service, therefore, direction be issued for reconsideration of his candidature. Learned counsel for the State has objected to this plea saying that the same has never been raised in the writ petition nor even in the memo of Special Appeal and as an after-thought, by means of a supplementary affidavit the same is being sought to be introduced in the Special Appeal. We do not find it expedient and reasonable to enter into the question of awarding marks to the appellant as it was not the subject matter of writ petition nor in the Special Appeal. We therefore, reject the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. The Special Appeal is dismissed. It is open to the appellant to raise his grievance before the competent authority before whom he is said to have made a representation and we do not find any reason, that if such a representation has been made, then why the same will not be decided by the competent authority.;