JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition with the prayer that the respondents be directed to apply the circular of the Department of Personnel dated 04/03/2002 in the process of selection for appointment on the post of Constable pursuant to the advertisement dated 18/02/2003 (Annexure-1) inviting applications for appointment on 30 posts of Constables. It has been prayed that the respondents may be directed to prepare the merit list afresh of OBC candidates by applying the aforesaid circular and the lowest candidates, who secured more marks than the last candidate in the general category, should be treated as general candidate and accordingly the OBC candidates, who were otherwise excluded from the merit list, should be pushed up by corresponding number of candidates who are liable to be selected on their own merit. 3. The respondents have contested the writ petition and submitted that though some of the OBC candidates are meritorious in the sense that they have secured more marks than the cut off marks of the general candidates but amongst the OBC candidates there are few such candidates who have applied for appointment to the post of Constable after getting the benefit of relaxation in maximum age limit and, therefore, the Circular aforesaid would not apply to their case. 4. The controversy raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney and others v. Union of India and Others, reported in 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217 and Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Shekh Mohd. Afzal and another v. The State of Rajasthan & another, reported in 2008(1) WLC (Raj.) Page 60 . 5. The argument raised in this case that the OBC candidates, if they come by availing of certain relaxation, are not liable to be placed amongst the category of general candidates, was considered by this Court earlier in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 491/2004, Chandra Bhan Yadav v. State of Rajasthan and others and in that case, it was held as under: "It would thus be seen that above referred to 13 candidates secured more marks than the last candidate selected in the open/general category by dint of their merit without resorting to relaxed standards of merit. Can it, therefore, be said that selection of such candidates, even if they belong to OBC category, would not be for the purpose of computation of quota treated in open/general category in view of settled proposition of law? There cannot be a different law of reservation for such candidates who get extended term of eligibility on account of relaxation in upper age limit. Age is an essential component of eligibility and has no co-relation with the merit. The respondent-RPSC has incorrectly applied the law of reservation." 6. In view of the law aforesaid, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The action of the respondents in not treating such OBC candidates, who secured more marks than the last candidate in the open/general category candidate as having been selected in that category is declared as illegal and unconstitutional. Resultantly, the respondents are directed to revise the merit list and treat such number of OBC candidates who secured more marks than last candidate in the general category as general category candidates and consequently same number of OBC candidates down below in the merit list, would be liable to be pushed up. After such exercise, if the petitioner is found entitled to appointment as per his merit, the respondents are directed to consider his case for appointment and provide him appointment on the post of Constable w.e.f. the date the last candidate in the OBC category or in the absence thereof, in general category, was appointed. The petitioner shall however be only entitled to notional benefits for the intervening period including the notional benefits of seniority and increments etc. 7. Compliance of the judgment be made within a period of three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents.Writ Petition Allowed. *******