JUDGMENT Hon’ble Amitava Lala, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to get a writ or direction issued in the nature of Certiorari to quash the entire result declared by Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, Allahabad for Combined State/Upper Subordinate Preliminary Examination, 2007. 2. According to the petitioner, pursuant to advertisement No. A-4/E-1/2007 issued by Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, Allahabad for Combined State/Upper Subordinate Preliminary Examination, 2007, he appeared in the preliminary examination with roll No. 100039 but was declared unsuccessful having secured 342.5 marks being candidate of general category whereas the candidates of reserved categories having secured less marks than the petitioner have been declared successful, as the Commission has approved different minimum cut off marks for different categories, such as 347.25 for General, 345.50 for O.B.C. and 308.75 for S.C. Main grievance of the petitioner is that benefit of reservation has been extended to the reserved category candidates by prescribing different cut off marks for different categories in respect of such preliminary examination. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended before this Court that the U.P. Direct Recruitment through Public Service Commission Preliminary Examination Rules, 1986 (for short the Rules) defines the terms “Preliminary Examination” under sub-rule (vi) of Rule 2 and means screening test to be conducted by the Commission with the purpose of finding out suitable candidates for admission to the main examination or interview. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the preliminary examination is not part of main examination and it is just a screening test for the purposes of determining suitability of candidates for appearing in the main examination and hence, benefit of reservation cannot be extended in the preliminary examination. He further contended that selection of a candidate for the public employment is made wholly on the basis of marks obtained in the main examination and not in the preliminary examination, therefore, for the purposes of determining respective merits of the candidates, marks obtained in the preliminary examination are not counted for the marks obtained in the main examination. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on a recent judgment of Supreme Court reported in (2009) 5 SCC 1 , Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Baloji Badhavath and others. 4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on a recent judgment of Supreme Court reported in (2009) 5 SCC 1 , Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Baloji Badhavath and others. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Public Service Commission contended before this Court that the petitioner has been rightly declared unsuccessful to appear in the main examination as he has secured less marks than the last qualified candidate of his category. The sole purpose of the preliminary examination is to screen out suitable candidates from amongst a large number of candidates who apply for the advertised posts and the suitable candidates are those who secure minimum number of marks prescribed by the Commission for their category. As per the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (for short the Act), with a view to ensure quota of different categories provided by the State Government in different services of the State, the Commission declares the results of preliminary examinations category wise in the ratio of 1 : 18 (vacancy : candidates) so that sufficient number of candidates of different categories could be available to fill up their quota at the stage of final selection. He further contended that the Commission has declared the result of said preliminary examinations after following all the relevant rules and there is no irregularity or illegality in the declaration of the result of preliminary examination. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, the main question involved in this case for determination by this Court is as to whether under the constitutional scheme of our country, benefit of reservation can be extended to the candidates of reserved category by fixing different cut off marks for the different categories in the preliminary examination, whereas the marks of such examination will not be counted for the purposes of determination of merit of respective candidates in the final selection. From Rules 2(vi) and (viii) of the Rules, we find definition of “Preliminary Examination” as well as “Suitable candidates” as follows : “(vi) “Preliminary Examination” means screening test to be conducted by the Commission with the purpose of finding out suitable candidates for admission to the main examination or interview; (viii) “Suitable candidates” means candidates securing minimum number of marks as may be fixed by Commission in its discretion at Preliminary Examination thereby enabling him to appear in the main examination or interview as the case may be;” 6. Thus, from the plain reading of such Rules we do not find any provision of reservation of separate categories under such Rules. We have gone through the Act to understand the position, if any, in respect of reservation of the candidates in preliminary examination and we find in the statement of objects and reasons that this is an Act to provide for the reservation in public services and posts in favour of the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes of citizens and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Upon going through the Act we find that the reservation is made for public services and posts but nowhere it has been categorised that in the process of screening under the nomenclature of preliminary examination how it will be done. Normally, in the process of screening, reservation may not be there giving a different cut off marks as and when no specification is there with regard to preliminary examination. If we go by Rules, we shall be able to find that ‘suitable candidate’ means candidate who is securing minimum number of marks fixed by the Commission in its discretion at Preliminary Examination, therefore, minimum number of marks will be different for different categories, is not within the scope of Commission. It cannot be said to be securing minimum marks by the suitable candidates. It is as good as final selection on the basis of different cut off marks by different categories of candidates. Thus, the discretion, as applied by the Commission cannot be said to be within the Rules but contrary to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Baloji Badhavath (supra), though it relates to a State which might be educationally superior to the State of U.P.. Thus, the discretion, as applied by the Commission cannot be said to be within the Rules but contrary to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Baloji Badhavath (supra), though it relates to a State which might be educationally superior to the State of U.P.. In the case of Baloji Badhavath (supra), Supreme Court held as follows: “The Constitution of India lays down provisions both for protective discrimination as also affirmative action. Reservation of posts for the disadvantaged class of people as also seats in educational institutions are provided for by reason of Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Reservation made for the members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes, however, is subject to Article 335 of the Constitution of India. Concededly, no citizen of India can claim reservation as a matter of right. The provisions contained in Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India are merely enabling provisions.” 7. Following Chattar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 11 SCC 742 Supreme Court also held that the lowest range of aggregate marks as cut-off for general candidates should be so worked out as to get the required number of candidates including OBCs, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Ultimately it is held that indisputably, the preliminary examination is not a part of the main examination. The merit of the candidate is not judged thereby. Only an eligibility criterion is fixed. The papers for holding the examination comprise of General Studies and Mental Ability. Such a test must be held to be necessary for the purpose of judging the basic eligibility of the candidates to hold the tests. How and in what manner the State as also the Commission would comply with the constitutional requirements of Article 335 of the Constitution of India should ordinarily not be allowed to be questioned. Lowering of marks for the candidates belonging to the reserved candidates (sic categories) is not a constitutional mandate at the threshold. It is permissible only for the purpose of promotion. Those who possess the basic eligibility would be entitled to appear at the main examination. Though the matter is related to State of Andhra Pradesh but the same cannot be said to be inapplicable principally in the State of Uttar Pradesh in the absence of specific Rules for the preliminary examination. It is permissible only for the purpose of promotion. Those who possess the basic eligibility would be entitled to appear at the main examination. Though the matter is related to State of Andhra Pradesh but the same cannot be said to be inapplicable principally in the State of Uttar Pradesh in the absence of specific Rules for the preliminary examination. Therefore, we are of the view that the result of Combined State/Upper Subordinate Preliminary Examination 2007 declared by the respondent No. 2 is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. The Preliminary Examination will be held afresh following the existing Rules within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, however, no order is passed as to cost. Hon’ble Uma Nath Singh, J.—I agree. ————