1. The petitioners belong to the reserved categories of Scheduled Tribe, Resident of Backward Areas and Areas Adjoining the Actual Line of Control. They participated in the Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination- 2011 seeking selection against the posts reserved for their categories. The Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission published list of candidates short listed for participation in the Combined Competitive (Mains) Examination vide Notification No.PSC/EX-11/119 dated 03.10.2011. The names of the petitioners did not figure therein. They have approached this Court questioning the Public Service Commission's Notification of October 03, 2011 and seeking participation in the Combined Competitive (Mains) Examination. 2. According to the case set up by the petitioners in the Writ Petition, the Commission was required to call 1/3rd of the total number of candidates or 25 times the total nvimber of vacancies reserved for the categories before considering shortlisting of candidates belonging to the reserved categories. 3. The Commission contests the petitioners' Claim urging that Rule 8(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 2008 would not permit category-wise short-listing of candidates, in that, the Preliminary Examination was not a part of the Main Examination and being only an eligibility criteria for participation in the Main Examination, application of rules of reservation to determine eligibility was impermissible. 4. Referring to the number of candidates short listed for the Mains Examination, the Commission says that as against 29 vacancies under RBA Category, 15 under Scheduled Tribe Category and 4 under Residents of Areas Adjoining Actual Line of Control, out of 4777 candidates in RBA Category, 1873 in Scheduled Tribe Category and 550 in ALC Category, 626 short listed candidates belong to RBA Category, 168 to Scheduled Tribe Category and 91 to ALC Category. 5. Petitioners' learned counsel vehemently argued that Article 335 of the Constitution of India being not applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the law laid down in Andhra Pradesh PSC v. Baloji Badhawath and others (2009) 5 SCC1, could not be pressed into service by the Commission to oust the application of the Reservation Act at the time of short listing the candidates for participation in the Combined Competitive (Mains) Examination and the Notification issued on the basis of the law laid down in Baloji's case supra was illegal. 6. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and am of the view that Rule 8(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 2008 that empowers the Public Service Commission to shortlist 1/3rd of the total number of candidates who had appeared in the Preliminary Examination or twenty five times of the total number of vacancies to be filled in various services and posts, having not been questioned by the petitioners in the Writ Petition which, when read as a whole, vests discretion in the Commission to either prescribe minimum qualifying marks for participation in the Main Examination or resort to me method of permitting only 1/3rd of the total number of candidates who had appeared in the Preliminary Examination or twenty five times the total number of vacancies to be filled in various services and posts, the petitioners' grievance cannot be entertained for adjudication. Even otherwise, the issue projected by the petitioners in the Writ Petition is settled by this Court in Rajesh Jamwal v. Public Service Commission and others and Kuldeep Kumar and others v. State of J&K and others, where while dealing with the issue, it was held as follows:- Rajesh Jamwal v. Public Service Commission & ors. "Under rule 8 Commission has to select the candidates for the main examination as far as practicable 1/3rd of total number of candidates who appeared in the examination or 25 times of the number of posts whichever is higher. The rule further provides that the Commission can fix minimum qualifying marks and would call only those candidates for the main examination who get the minimum qualifying marks prescribed by the Commission. Thus where the Commission must as far as practicable select 1/3 of the total number of candidates who appeared (or 25 times of the number of available posts) the Commission has power, under the same rule to even further restrict this number by fixing minimum qualifying marks and where such minimum qualifying marks are prescribed only such candidate can get selected for the mains examination who get such marks even if they fall within one third number. This rule has not been challenged. The petitioners in questioned. The court has held as under: "Indisputably, the preliminary examination is not a part of the main examination. The merit of the candidate is not judged thereby. This rule has not been challenged. The petitioners in questioned. The court has held as under: "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." In view of the law laid down I find the respondents were fully justified in not treating the preliminary examination as a part of main examination and not to make selection on category-wise basis for the main examination." Kuldeep Kumar & Ors v. State of J&K & Ors "In view of the aforementioned discussion, it clearly reveals that Rule 7 will come into operation after the select list is drawn in order of merit obtained by the candidates both in written examination and the interview. It does not contemplate applying reservation rules either at the time of preliminary examination or at the time the main examination. I am unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners in this behalf that the policy of reservation has to be applied at every stage of selection." 7. The petitioners' learned counsel's plea based on Baloji Badhawath's case supra cannot, therefore, be entertained for consideration in view of the provisions of Rule 8(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 2008, which support the course adopted by the Commission in short listing the candidates for the Mains Examination. 8. The issue raised by the petitioners having been settled by the Court, I do not find any case to have been made out for admission of the Writ Petition to hearing. This Petition is, therefore, dismissed.