Judgment 1. In view of quashing of result of Rajasthan State and Combined Competitive Main Examination declared on 27.04.2005 held by the RPSC and further in view of the direction of the learned Single Judge that the interview (personality and viva-voce examination) held thereafter also shall stand quashed, it became essential for the RPSC to contend before this Court that quashing the entire exercise of examination will result in grave prejudice to the RPSC as also the examinees, who have taken the examination and are due to be posted in the State Services after the entire process of examination is complete. 2. In fact, the bone of contention between the contesting parties lies within a very short compass as the grievance of the respondents/candidates, who were petitioners before the learned Single Judge, was only to the extent that the RPSC should not have included and placed the reserved category candidates in the list of general (non-reserved) category candidates, who were to be interviewed after declaration of the results of their written examination. The grievance of the respondents-petitioners was only to the extent that while inviting the reserved category candidates for interview, their inclusion and placement in the general (non-reserved) category list was wholly arbitrary, illegal and clearly contrary to Rule 15 of the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1999 (for short, the RPSC Rules) and the learned Single Judge, having concluded and inferred that the reserved category candidates could not have been included and placed in the list of general (non-reserved category) category candidates for the purpose of summoning them for interview, was pleased to quash the entire on going process of examination including the interview and directed that fresh exercise be undertaken by preparing the list of all the categories of candidates separately, who were to be interviewed. 3. As apparent, the RPSC has preferred this appeal against the Judgment and order of the learned Single Judge and it sought to impress upon this Court that considering the wide repercussion of this Judgment on the selection process, which was about to be completed, it would be appropriate for the Court to decide the matter expeditiously. 3. As apparent, the RPSC has preferred this appeal against the Judgment and order of the learned Single Judge and it sought to impress upon this Court that considering the wide repercussion of this Judgment on the selection process, which was about to be completed, it would be appropriate for the Court to decide the matter expeditiously. But it is quite obvious that the entire controversy although lies in a short compass and the grievance of the respondents-petitioners in only to the extent that the reserved category candidates should not have been included in the list of general (non-reserved) category candidates, who had to be interviewed by the RPSC, the disposal of the entire appeal in view of the submissions and counter-submissions by a battery of lawyers, is bound to consume considerable amount of time. 4. We, therefore, took notice of the admitted position that candidates thrice in number of the posts, which are to be filled in, have to be interviewed by the RPSC and a chart has been furnished to the Court stating that there are 252 posts available in general (non-reserved) category candidates meaning thereby that three times the candidates of the available posts have to be interviewed, which comes to 756, out of which reserved category candidates including SC, ST, OBC comes to 312. The grievance of the respondents-petitioners, therefore, boils down to the fact as to whether 312 candidates from the general (non-reserved) category candidates could have been included in this list of eligible candidates, who have to be interviewed. This Court, therefore, after hearing the Counsel for the respondents and their submissions suggested a workable solution to the Counsel for all the contesting parties that such candidates from the general (non-reserved) category candidates, who had not been included in the list of general (non-reserved) category candidates on account of inclusion of reserved category candidates in non-reserved list, may also be interviewed by the RPSC so that the grievance of the respondents-candidates is ultimately met with by the RPSC without sacrificing the interest of the reserved category candidates and this could also cut-short the controversy as well as obviate the delay in completing the process. 5. 5. Fortunately, for all the affected parties, this solution is acceptable to the Counsels also as in the process, neither the reserved category candidates will be deprived of the opportunity to compete in the interview, nor the general (non-reserved) category candidates can possibly have any grievance that they will be deprived of their chance to appear in the interview merely because the reserved category candidates have been included in the non-reserved list. As already stated, the only controversy which was raised by the non-reserved category candidates was to the effect that the reserved category candidates could not have been included in the non-reserved category merit list for the purpose of appearing in the interview so as to exclude the candidates in the non-reserved category. The acceptable solution will henceforth take care of all the affected parties and, therefore, RPSC is directed to hold additional interview of 312 candidates from the general (non-reserved) category candidates in addition to 312 candidates belonging to the reserved category candidates, who have already been interviewed. It is no doubt true that the repercussion of this exercise would result into exceeding the limit of three times the candidates of available posts. But, we take note of the decision delivered in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav vs. State of Haryana, reported in 1985 (4) SCC 417 wherein, it has been held that in a given situation, candidates four or five times the posts available, can also be interviewed. In view of this ratio, exceeding three times the candidates of the posts available would eventually will not sacrifice the final result in any manner except of course marginally only those candidates who are exceedingly down below the list. 6. We consider that to meet the ends of justice, this is the most appropriate solution, which can be applied in the existing facts and circumstances of the situation. The RPSC thus will additionally summon 312 general (non-reserved) category candidates for the interview in order to avoid miscarriage of justice to all the concerned parties. The RPSC thereafter shall also declare the final result of this interview in order to recommend them for appointment. The RPSC is expected to complete the process expeditiously and as early as possible. 7. In view of this order, the directions issued by the learned Single Judge shall remain in abeyance. 8. The application for stay accordingly be treated disposed of .