JUDGEMENT Shiva Kirti Singh, J. 1. The State of Bihar as well as the Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment), Bihar and some of their officials have preferred these three appeals under Clause 10 of Letters Patent of this Court to challenge the judgment and order of the writ court dated 19th February, 2011 whereby CWJC Nos. 14170 of 2010, 503 of 2011 and 512 of 2011 have been disposed of alongwith CWJC No. 14742 of 2010 and CWJC No. 504 of 2011. 2. Through the judgment and order under appeal, the writ court has interfered with the final result of selected candidates to a limited extent and has directed the respondents to redraw the final result separately on the basis of two Physical Evaluation Tests (PET) held at two stages. The writ court noticed that there was substantial compliance with all the statutory provisions and instructions in holding the written examination and calling the qualified candidates for PET-1, therefore, the result of all the successful candidates on the basis of PET-1 must be published and on that basis recommendations should be made for appointment against remaining available vacancies of different categories out of 5058 vacancies meant for Non Home Guard category of candidates. The writ court has further directed that for the 5052 vacancies meant for Home Guard category of candidates which have remained available after appointment of only 131 candidates of Home Guard category on the basis of PET-1, should be filled up from the candidates of respective categories available after PET- 2, for which the left over candidates of PET- 1 as well as the left over vacancies of PET- 1 shall also be taken into account for making appointment strictly as per respective category of the candidates and their ranking in the merit list of written test. The separate results have been directed to be drawn and finally published within one month from the date of the judgment and order. 3. The separate results have been directed to be drawn and finally published within one month from the date of the judgment and order. 3. The case of the appellants is that the writ court should have held that lowering down of qualifying marks for the written test was of no consequence because after the result of written test was published on 18-6-2010 by applying cut off marks as per 1991 Personnel and Administrative Reforms Departments Circular, it was found that only 19616 candidates out of 3.65 lacs, applicants have passed whereas out of 10,110 vacancies which were subject matter of advertisement No. 2 of 2009, 5052 were meant for the Home Guard category of candidates but only 389 applicants from this category passed the written test and only 131 of them qualified for the PET-1. According to learned counsel for the appellants, only 5676 candidates including 131 from the Home Guard category had cleared PET-1 and this was not sufficient to fill up the advertised vacancies of 10,110 and, therefore, tresh guidelines were issued by the State Government on 4.8.2010 to declare that provisions in the Bihar Police Act, 2007 for calling candidates for the Physical Evaluation Test, after holding of the written examination, in the ratio of 1:5 was mandatory and hence, the executive circulars of Personnel Department laying down cut off marks for various categories are not required to be followed in the matter of recruitment to the post of Constables. The guidelines clarified that the minimum eligibility marks were, therefore, relaxed and in that light candidates in each category (reserved category) be called in the ratio of 1:5. The guidelines directed for revising the result of the written examination simply on the basis of 1:5 ratio of the vacancies vis-a-vis the candidates required to be called for interview and to publish the result accordingly on the basis of PET-1 and to hold PET-2 so as to publish further final result within 30 days of the result published on the basis of PET-1. The guidelines, thus, directed for final results in two stages but with a stipulation that ultimately one merit list will be prepared of all the successful candidates for fixing their inter se seniority though they may have succeeded in two different stages. The guidelines, thus, directed for final results in two stages but with a stipulation that ultimately one merit list will be prepared of all the successful candidates for fixing their inter se seniority though they may have succeeded in two different stages. The guidelines further provided that 50% of the vacancies should be filled up with candidates belonging to the category of Home Guards but if such posts remained vacant due to non-availability of suitable candidates then the remaining vacancies of Home Guard category should be made available to open category. It was highlighted in the guidelines that for filling up the vacancies of Home Guard category candidates from each reserved category should also be called for in the proportion of 1: 5 for the Physical Evaluation Test. 4. The cause of action for filing the writ petitions arose mainly because the Selection Board while publishing the result based on PET-1 on 18-8-2010 went into issues relating to reservation and published the results of only 2228 candidates and resuits of 3317 candidates were put on hold. Out of 2228 candidates 2095 belonged to general category, 131 to Home Guard category and 2 to Gorkha category. The last candidate selected for appointment had obtained 120 marks in the written test. The grievance raised on behalf of the writ petitioners was that the result of 3317 candidates was wrongly put on hold only to appease the Home Guard candidates and for diluting the standard set for entering into category of general candidates; the concept of cut off marks was wrongly given a go-by after the results on the basis of written test had already been published and Physical Evaluation Test was also over. According to writ petitioners the effect of subsequent relaxation is two fold, firstly persons having secured less than zero marks (on account of negative marking) have been selected for final appointment in preference to those who had obtained much higher roughly 120 marks in the written test and secondly, such candidates who had secured absurdly low marks (even less than zero) also became eligible for being included in the general category of Home Guard candidates and, therefore, candidates of general category having much higher marks have been deprived from being considered for appointment against vacancies of general category candidates which had to revert to the open category candidates as per declared norms and government guidelines. 5. 5. Learned writ court has considered all the relevant materials in coming to a conclusion that there was substantial compliance with the provisions of calling for candidates for Physical Evaluation Test in the ratio of 1:5 and such ratio could be maintained, as far as possible, only after the result of the written examination on the basis of minimum qualifying marks or cut off marks as per prevailing policy decision, Hence, the writ court was of the view that the subsequent relaxation of marks may be condoned but such selection on the basis of PET-2 cannot be a selection on the basis of marks and, therefore, the successful candidates of PET-1 whose results were withheld had to be treated as successful candidates and the candidates selected after ignoring cut off marks on the basis of PET-2 could not be treated as candidates selected on the basis of merit so as to entitle them to be counted as general category candidates. Such candidates, according to writ court, cannot be treated as general candidates because they have been made to qualify without merits. 6. The facts are not in much dispute and the basic issues are whether State Government could relax minimum eligibility marks by holding that it was mandatory to call candidates for Physical Evaluation Test in the ratio of 1:5 regardless of their performance in the written examination. The view of the writ court appears to be correct that the newly enacted selection process by holding written examination will be rendered nugatory and meaningless if there will be no cut off marks. There can be no dispute that doing away with cut off marks completely will not only be counter productive to the purpose of efficient public recruitments on the basis of merit but shall also make inroad into well understood concept of reservation which is permitted generally up to 50% of the available vacancies in favour of reserved category of candidates and the remaining vacancies, loosely described as general category vacancies, are to be filled up strictly on the basis of merit. If a candidate of reserved category finds a place in the category of general candidates on account of his merit, he is treated as general candidate and not as a reserved category candidate. If a candidate of reserved category finds a place in the category of general candidates on account of his merit, he is treated as general candidate and not as a reserved category candidate. If merit is to be ignored totally so as to appoint candidates who have obtained even negative marks, that is, zero or less, it shall have serious adverse impact on the entire concept of leaving 50% vacancies as general and open to be filled up on the basis of merit alone. This shall be in contradiction and derogation of well established concept of permitting reservation generally up to 50% of the vacancies only. It will also adversely affect the necessity of balancing merit and competence in public services with required concession for filling up only the reserved category of posts by lowering down the minimum eligibility marks for such categories alone to a reasonable extent. 7. It may be relevant to notice some relevant judgments on the issue of fixing of cut off marks. In the case of State of Punjab V/s. Manjit Singh, (2003)11 SCC 559 , while considering validity of short listing of scheduled caste candidates by a written scrutiny test, the Apex Court in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 held that the best candidates in different categories should be permitted to come in the zone of consideration depending upon the number of vacancies but the State Government may decide as a matter of policy the measures, if necessary, to be provided regarding reservations vis-a-vis maintenance of efficiency in services. In the case of Pitta Naveen Kumar & Ors. V/s. Raja Narasaiah Zangiti & Ors., (2006)10 SCC 261 , the issue was whether eligibility conditions in relation to a recruitment process could be relaxed by subsequent issuance of administrative instructions. The Court held it could not be done and reduction of cut off marks was held to be arbitrary. 8. The requirement of calling candidates in the ratio of 1:5 for Physical Evaluation Test must be held to be directory and this ratio should be adhered to, to the extent possible, depending upon the number of candidates who qualified in the written examination. If a contrary view is taken, then holding of written examination, though required by the statutory rules, may become meaningless and redundant in case the number of candidates is less than the number of vacancies in any particular class or category. If a contrary view is taken, then holding of written examination, though required by the statutory rules, may become meaningless and redundant in case the number of candidates is less than the number of vacancies in any particular class or category. Further, such requirement can not be followed strictly if the number of candidates in any category is less than five times the number of vacancies for such category. Hence, the view of the writ court is correct that such a requirement needs only substantial compliance. 9. It is also well established in law that once a selection process commences, it should be conducted and concluded as per rules and guidelines then prevailing and subsequent amendment in the rules or guidelines should normally govern sub-sequent recruitment process initiated after amendment of the rules or guidelines. In the present case, the writ court on account of some consideration has chosen not to interfere with the decision of the appellants to follow the amended guidelines although they were issued after the publication of the result of the written examination and after the PET-1 was held. There is no appeal before us challenging this part of the judgment and order otherwise, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction we would have been required to consider whether to allow or not the operation of subsequent guidelines in respect of present recruitment process. 10. In the facts of the case, in our view the prayer made in these appeals seeking to amalgamate the results of PET- 1 and PET-2 and to implement reservation rules in respect of such combined result on the basis of no cut off marks, has no merit and hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment and order under appeal. All the appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. Ravi Ranjan, J. 12 I agree.