Judgment 1. Since, all the appeals arise out of the same impugned order, therefore, we hear and decide all the above appeals by this common order. 2. The admitted facts are that some vacancies of School Lecturers are advertised on 08.06.2001. Thereafter, corrigendum has been issued on 23.01.2002 by the RPSC whereby, it has been made clear that the vacancies advertised will be filled against back log vacancies of SC/ST. That has been challenged in the writ petition that the vacancies advertised for the General and OBC category, they should be filled from the General and OBC candidates and validity of the corrigendum issued by the RPSC has also been challenged. The intention of the State has been clarified in order dated 22.06.2004. .3. Learned Single Judge held that now the selection process has been over, even the appointments have been given, therefore, the entire selection process cannot be set aside, however the directions were given to the respondents to determine the vacancies as per the clarification given in the Circular dated 26.06.2002 and after determining vacancies, issue the requisition if any, vacancies are available, for General and OBC candidates. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 5. While considering this aspect, the learned Single Judge has dealt this issue as under :-“Since, the whole selection process is over as per the revised requisition sent by the State Government and corrigendum issued by the Commission and appointments have also been made long back, the prayers as made in the present writ petitions cannot be accepted at this stage. Mr. Kumawat, learned Counsel for the Commission, also submitted that selections have been made strictly as per requisition sent and corrigendum issued by the Commission. Thus, it will also not be proper and justified to set aside the entire selections and reopen the whole process, moreso, when even the appointments have also been made long back. Mr. Kumawat, learned Counsel for the Commission, also submitted that selections have been made strictly as per requisition sent and corrigendum issued by the Commission. Thus, it will also not be proper and justified to set aside the entire selections and reopen the whole process, moreso, when even the appointments have also been made long back. However, since the State Government itself has issued a clarification by Circular dated 26.06.2004, much after the selections made in the present case, the State Government in all fairness is now expected to determine the vacancies in respective subjects concerned afresh as per the clarification made in the Circular dated 26.06.2004 and if there are still any vacancies unfilled under ay categories, including the general category, for the period prior to 10.2002, the State Government may send a fresh requisition to the Commission to make selections accordingly. Prima facie, it appears that there has been confusion among the authorities in record to determination of vacancies in view of the amendment made in the Constitution of India and then a subsequent notification issued on 10.2002 and, in view of such circumstances, many candidates might have become over age by now at the time of fresh selections, if any, to be made. It is relaxation to the candidates in the particular selections, the powers of which have also been given under the relevant rules itself . In the interest of services and public at large, wherein large number of unemployed youth are involved, the State Government is expected to make the necessary exercise and act accordingly as expeditiously as possible. 6. When the intention has been clarified by the State in order dated 26.06.2004 that from which date the circular will have effect and it is made clear that the circular will have effect from 10.2002 and prior to that the vacancies will be filled as per rules exists prior to 10.2002, there is no illegality in it. In view of the direction given by the learned Single Judge on the given facts, we see no merit in these appeals. 7. All the appeals stands dismissed at admission stage.