JUDGMENT 1. - All the three petitioners coming from Other Backward Class, faced process of selection to be recruited as Patwari and secured 175.33 (petitioners No.1&2) and 174.67 (petitioner No.3) marks. The cut-off marks for the Other Backward Class (Male) as declared by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission are 176, thus, the petitioners were not placed in the list of selected candidates. Their grievance is that the cut-off marks for General category are 178 and there are number of persons placed in the category of Other Backward Classes, who are having marks more than 178. Reference of Serva Shri Phool Singh, Shiv Shanker, Gopal Sahu, Rameshwar Lal, Hemant Namdev, Trilok Chand Kaswan and Sukhaveer Singh is given, who are coming from the category of Other Backward Class and having marks more than 180. As per the petitioners, these persons should have been enlisted with General category and then a list of the selected persons from Other Backward Class should have been drawn. 2. As per the reply submitted on behalf of Rajasthan Public Service Commission, the persons named by the petitioners secured marks above the cut-off marks settled for Other Backward Class, but they were placed in the list of their own category in view of the fact that a benefit of age relaxations and concessions in the payment of fees was extended to them. The persons sought to be placed in the General category though belonging to Other Backward Classes, as per the respondents could have not been considered eligible, if the concessions and relaxations available to reserved categories would have not been given to them. It is asserted that in view of the fact that the persons concerned availed relaxations and exemptions, therefore, they were considered under the category to which they belong irrespective of the quantum of marks obtained by them. 3. The issue involved in this petition for writ is that whether the persons coming from reserved categories, if secures bearth amongst general candidates, but availed exemption and relaxation required to be considered under reserved category on basis of general merit. 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jitendra Kumar Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2010) 3 SCC 119 , examined this aspect and held as under:- "75. In our opinion, the relaxation in age does not in any manner upset the "level playing field". 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jitendra Kumar Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2010) 3 SCC 119 , examined this aspect and held as under:- "75. In our opinion, the relaxation in age does not in any manner upset the "level playing field". It is not possible to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that relaxation in age or the concession in fee would in any manner be infringement of Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. These concessions are provisions pertaining to the eligibility of a candidate to appear in the competitive examination. At the time when the concessions are availed, the open competition has not commenced. It commences when all the candidates who fulfil the eligibility conditions, namely, qualifications, age, preliminary written test and physical test are permitted to sit in the main written examination. With age relaxation and the fee concession, the reserved candidates are merely brought within the zone of consideration, so that they can participate in the open competition on merit. Once the candidate participates in the written examination, it is immaterial as to which category, the candidate belongs. All the candidates to be declared eligible had participated in the preliminary test as also in the physical test. It is only thereafter that successful candidates have been permitted to participate in the open competition. 76. Mr. Rao had suggested that Section 3(6) ensures that there is a level playing field in open competition. However, Section 8 lowers the level playing field, by providing concessions in respect of fees for any competitive examination or interview and relaxation in upper age-limit. We are unable to accept the aforesaid submission. Section 3(6) is clear and unambiguous. It clearly provides that a reserved category candidate who gets selected on the basis of merit in open competition with general category candidates shall not be adjusted against the reserved vacancies. Section 3(1), 3(6) and Section 8 are interconnected. Expression "open competition" in Section 3(6) clearly provides that all eligible candidates have to be assessed on the same criteria. 77. We have already noticed earlier that all the candidates irrespective of the category they belong to have been subjected to the uniform selection criteria. All of them have participated in the preliminary written test and the physical test followed by the main written test and the interview. 77. We have already noticed earlier that all the candidates irrespective of the category they belong to have been subjected to the uniform selection criteria. All of them have participated in the preliminary written test and the physical test followed by the main written test and the interview. Such being the position, we are unable to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioners that the reserved category candidates having availed relaxation of age are disqualified to be adjusted against the open category seats. It was perhaps to avoid any further confusion that the State of Uttar Pradesh issued directions on 25-3-1994 to ensure compliance with the various provisions of the Act. Non-compliance with any officer was in fact made punishable with imprisonment which may extend to period of three months." 5. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar Singh (Supra), the candidates belonging to reserve categories, if stand in general merit then their candidature is required to be considered on basis of general merit, irrespective of the factum of the extension of relaxation and exemption. The respondent-Rajasthan Public Service Commission, therefore, should have placed the members of Other Backward Classes, who have secured marks more than 178 in General category irrespective of availing the relaxation and exemption. The non-enlistment of those persons in General category is erroneous and therefore, deserves to be declared illegal. 6. At this stage, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent - Commission that in pursuant to the process of selection concerned, appointments have already been given and those are not required to be reshuffled at this stage. 7. After considering all aspects of the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition for writ by giving directions to the respondents to recommend the names of the petitioners for appointment as Patwari, if sufficient vacancies exist on placement of the members of Other Backward Classes, who have secured marks more than 178 in General category, though the entire select list is not required to be reshuffled. The candidatures of the petitioners in terms above is required to be made within a period of three months from today. No order as to costs.Petition Disposed of. *******