JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, a challenge is made to cut off marks published for Rajasthan State and Subordinate Service Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination, 2012 (for short `the Examination of 2012'). 2. It is stated that cut off marks of reserve category candidates are more than open category thus declaration of cut off marks become illegal. It is in view of the fact that reserve category candidates, who obtained higher marks, are to be placed in open category in view of vertical reservation. The respondents may accordingly be directed to shift and migrate reserve category candidates to the open category if they have obtained more marks than the candidates in open category. He has referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhawani Sing Kaviya and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported as 2008 (4) RLW (Raj) 3138: (2008 Lab IC 3504 (Raj)) . 3. It is stated that the principle of vertical reservation has been considered by the High Court in reference of judgment of the Apex Court. Accordingly, respondents should draw list as prayed in the present writ petition. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner and scanned the matter carefully. 5. It is case where selection for the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Service Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination. 2012 is to be made by combined competitive examination. It is pursuant to the Rajasthan State Subordinate Service (Direct Recruitment through Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1999. As per the scheme of the Rules, selection is divided in three parts. In the first part, Preliminary Examination is held for the purpose of short listing. The marks obtained in the Preliminary Examination are not counted towards determination of final list. After Preliminary Examination for short listing, candidates are called for Main Written Examination. It is 15 times to the posts for each category namely; Open Category, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Class etc. in view of Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999. After appearance in the Main Examination, successful candidates are called for the interview and, thereupon, final merit list is drawn for appointment. 6. The issue for my consideration is as to whether while drawing the result of Preliminary Examination for combined competitive examination, list of each category namely; OC, SC, ST, OBC etc. After appearance in the Main Examination, successful candidates are called for the interview and, thereupon, final merit list is drawn for appointment. 6. The issue for my consideration is as to whether while drawing the result of Preliminary Examination for combined competitive examination, list of each category namely; OC, SC, ST, OBC etc. should be maintained by providing vertical reservation or it should be strictly as per the merit of candidates of the category to which they belong. If the question is answered on general perception then open category consist of every caste. It is by applying vertical reservation. The answer aforesaid seems to be simple but it is to be assessed whether it applies to the present case or not. It is broadly for the reason that whether reservation is vertical or horizontal, it applies at the stage when final merit list is to be drawn for appointment. Reservation is not provided at every stage of selection and specially for short listing. The issue aforesaid was considered by the Division Bench of this Court elaborately in the case of Dharmveer Tholia & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported as 2000 (3) WLC (Raj) 399: (2001 Lab IC 1292 (Raj)) . The decision aforesaid was not only in respect of the same rules applicable herein but even on the same facts as narrated hereinabove. Paras 1 and 3 of the said judgment would be relevant where not only the issue has been formalised but framed in para 6 of the said judgment, thus paras 1, 3 and 6 are quoted hereunder:- "1. This writ petition was filed by a practicing Advocate at Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court with the following prayer:- (i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the RPSC to prepare a list of candidate to the main examination by accommodating all reserved category candidates first in the general category if such candidates secured position in the general category on their merit standing and thereafter prepare a list for the reserved category candidates including the OBC category; (ii) Declaring the part of Rule 15 of the Rules that permits preparation of the list of candidates to be admitted to the main examination from the candidates who were taken the preliminary examination category wise as violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 3. 3. The other writ petitions were filed by petitioners who are members of the other backward class community (OBC) who have submitted their application as members of the OBC for the current preliminary examination held by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred as the RPSC). It is stated that these writ petitions were filed by the petitioners challenging the action of the RPSC under which for the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment through Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred as `the Rules of 1999') lists have been drawn for admission to the main examination in terms of Rule 15 of the Rules. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the RPSC has interpreted Rule 15 in a manner that has turned out to be highly oppressive to the interest of the reserved category i.e. SC, ST and OBC. It is stated that the grave injustice done to the SC, ST and OBC can be appreciated from the fact that while a general category candidate securing 203 marks has been admitted to the main examination, the OBC candidates securing 203 marks have been denied admission to the main examination. It is stated that the RPSC has prepared the list category wise in a manner that the list of general category candidates has been prepared excluding the entire reserved category notwithstanding the fact that reserved category candidates on account of their merit standing can be positioned in the general category. A direct consequence of this is that the RPSC has brought about a positive reservation of 51 % in favour of the unreserved category. Such reservation in favour of unreserved category amounts to massive affirmative action in favour of general category which is constitutionally impermissible as it violates the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is also further alleged that the reservation in favour of general category is constitutionally not envisaged and on that account also, the RPSC action cannot be sustained. 6. According to the petitioners the rational interpretation of Rule 15 require that all reserved category candidates who secured place in the merit list on the strength of their merit deserve to be counted in the general category. 6. According to the petitioners the rational interpretation of Rule 15 require that all reserved category candidates who secured place in the merit list on the strength of their merit deserve to be counted in the general category. In D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3346/2000, the following questions of law have been raised:- (i) Whether it is permissible for the R.P.S.C. to draw a list in terms of Rule 13 by excluding reserved category from general category not-withstanding the fact that reserve category persons on their merit standing find placement in general category? (ii) Whether it is permissible for the R.P.S.C. to have a higher cut off standard for the OBC as compared to the general category? (iii) Whether it is constitutionally permissible for the R.P.S.C. to operate Rule 15 in a manner that disadvantaged sections, reserved category (OBC) is made to suffer handicaps on account of reservation as compared to general category? (iv) Whether Rule 15 as interpreted by R.P.S.C. is unconstitutional has offended Articles 14, 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India? (v) Whether Rule 15 as interpreted by R.P.S.C. is contrary to law laid down by Apex Court? (vi) Whether general category can be codified as non-reserved category and excluded in all situations meritorious reserved category candidates and can find place in general category on their own merit standing? (vii) Whether the massive affirmative action in favour of general category (non-reserved category) is permissible under Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India? 7. Perusal of sub-paras (ii), (iii) and (v) of para 6 cover the issue raised herein. For consideration of the issue aforesaid, Division Bench has first taken note of Rules 15 and 17 of the Rules of 1999. It is in the background that Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999 permits preparation of the result of the Preliminary Examination for each category to the extent of 15 times to the posts advertised and Rule 17 makes a reference of final select list for the purpose of recommendation of the Commission. Both the rules are relevant thus are quoted hereunder for ready reference "15. Scheme of Examination, Personality and Viva-voice Test:- The competitive examination shall be conducted by the Commission in two stages i.e. Preliminary Examination and Main Examination as per the scheme specified in Schedule III. Both the rules are relevant thus are quoted hereunder for ready reference "15. Scheme of Examination, Personality and Viva-voice Test:- The competitive examination shall be conducted by the Commission in two stages i.e. Preliminary Examination and Main Examination as per the scheme specified in Schedule III. The marks obtained in the Preliminary Examination by the candidates, are declared qualified for admission to the Main Examination will not be counted for determining their final order of merit. The number of candidates to be admitted to the Main Examination will be 15 times the total approximate number of vacancies (category wise) to be filled in the year in the various services and posts but in the said range all those candidates who secure the same percentage of marks as may be fixed by the Commission for any lower range will be admitted to the Main Examination. Candidates who obtain such minimum qualifying marks in the Main Examination as may be fixed by the Commission in their discretion shall be summoned by them for an interview. The Commission shall award marks to each candidates interviewed by them, having regard to their character, personality, address, physique and knowledge of Rajasthani Culture. However, for selection to the Rajasthan Police Service candidate having `C' Certificate of N.C.C. will be given preference. The marks so awarded shall be added to the marks obtained in the Main Examination by each such candidate:- Provided that the commission, on intimation being received from the Government before declaration of the result of the Preliminary Examination, may increase or decrease the number of vacancies advertised. 17. Recommendation of the Commission:- (1) The Commission shall prepare for each Service, a list of candidates arranged in order of merit of the candidates as disclosed by the aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidate. If two or more of such candidates obtained equal marks in the aggregate the Commission shall arrange their names in the order of merit on the basis of their general suitability for the service:- Provided that the candidate (s) belonging to the other Backward Classes/Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribes, who get placement in the merit lists as a result of special concession given to them in terms of ? "age or such other concession granted by the Government excluding the concession in fees" shall be counted against the reserved vacancies determined for the candidates belonging to the other Backward Classes/Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes irrespective of the marks obtained by them. (2) The Commission, while giving weightage to the preference for the posts in the different services expressed by a candidate in his/her application, may recommend him/her for appointment to any post in any such service for which it considers him suitable. (3) The list compiled under this rule shall be immediately sent to the Government and also be published for general information. 8. Perusal of Rule 15 reveals that number of candidates to be called for main examination will be 15 times of the total approximate number of vacancies (category-wise). The word `category-wise' has been considered by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission to indicate OC/SC/ST/OBC etc separately and, therein, migration is not made permissible as otherwise given while providing vertical reservation. This is precisely for the reason that preliminary examination is not for preparation of final merit list so as to provide reservation but is for the purpose of short listing only. For the purpose of short listing, the principle of vertical reservation cannot apply as reservation is provided in appointment and not at every sphere of selection. 9. Rule 17 of the Rules of 1999 clarifies the position for recommendation of the Commission. The issue aforesaid was elaborately dealt with by the Division Bench after referring various judgments of the Supreme Court, more specifically, judgment in the case of Chattar Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported as 1996 (11) SCC 742 : ( AIR 1997 SC 303 ) . Therein, rule was challenged, however, challenge to the constitutional validity of the rule could not sustain. Therein, same practice was adopted and upheld by the Apex Court. The judgment of this Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Gehlot & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported as 1996 (3) RLW 344 was also considered where matter was referred to the third learned Judge in view of the difference of opinion between two Hon'ble Judges. It was held that preliminary examination is essentially for short listing thus rider of Article 335 of the Constitution of India cannot be applied at the stage of preliminary examination but can be applied to the main examination. It was held that preliminary examination is essentially for short listing thus rider of Article 335 of the Constitution of India cannot be applied at the stage of preliminary examination but can be applied to the main examination. Paras 41 and 43 to 45 of the judgment in the case of Dharmveer Tholia (2001 Lab IC 1292 (Raj)) (supra) are reproduced to show elaborate discussion on the issue in reference to the aforesaid judgments. "41. In Vijay Kumar Gehlot and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., RLW 1996 (3) 344 , a reference was made to the third Judge (V. S. Kokje, J.), decided in S. B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1579/96 and 427/96, under Rule 61-A of the Rules on difference of opinion between B.R. Arora, J. and J.C. Verma, J., who heard the petition. When the matter came up before the learned single Judge, he issued ad interim writ directing the RPSC to publish the result of the preliminary examination of Rajasthan State and Subordinate Service (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination), category-wise for the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Classes candidates and rest of the candidates in general category separately. It was also directed that number of candidates permitted to take examination should be 15 times of the vacancies. It was further directed that the main examination be not held on the basis of the result of the preliminary examination already published which was under challenge. The learned Judge later dismissed the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution filed by the State of Rajasthan and others and confirmed the earlier ad interim order with modification that if the RPSC decides to publish the result of preliminary examination category-wise, then the main examination may be held, but the result of the main examination so held should not be declared till pendency of the writ petition. The RPSC filed D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 427/96 against the order of the learned single Judge. The petitioner, who belongs to OBC contended that the reservations have been provided by a general order in the Government employment to SC/ST and OBC. Reservation to the SC and ST candidates was available when initially the Rules were framed in 1962. Subsequently in the year 1994, reservations were also granted to OBCs. The petitioner, who belongs to OBC contended that the reservations have been provided by a general order in the Government employment to SC/ST and OBC. Reservation to the SC and ST candidates was available when initially the Rules were framed in 1962. Subsequently in the year 1994, reservations were also granted to OBCs. The petitioners contended that the results of the preliminary examination have to be declared separately category-wise for the SC, ST and OBC and the general or unreserved class. It was also contended that the concession of lowering the cut-off marks by five per cent. in case of shortfall of candidates has also to be made available to the candidates belonging to OBCs as it is available to SC and ST candidates. However, the Division Bench turned down the contention that it was necessary for the Commission to publish the result of the preliminary examination category-wise. B. R. Arora, J. was of the view that since the Rules did not specifically provide for any such concession to be given to the OBC candidates, no such concession could be made available to them. J. C. Verma, J. was of the view that no distinction could be made in the treatment to be meted out to them. Because of this difference of opinion, the Division Bench directed the matter to be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice, who nominated Kokje J. as a Judge to hear the reference. After considering rival submissions made by both the parties, the learned Judge in Para 34 of the judgment has held as follows:- "It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners injustice being done to the members of the OBC. It was contended that the OBC is to see that they really get adequate representation in the service by occupying the posts reserved for them. By depriving them of an opportunity to appear at the main examination, the very purpose of the reservation was being defeated as per the learned counsel for the petitioners. The answer to all these pleas is very simple. If the petitioners wanted to canvass that point, it was open to them to challenge the very basis of providing cut-off marks for the preliminary examination. The answer to all these pleas is very simple. If the petitioners wanted to canvass that point, it was open to them to challenge the very basis of providing cut-off marks for the preliminary examination. A preliminary examination is short-listing candidates to a reasonable and practical extent so that in the main examination, the confusion and disorder likely to be created because of large number of candidates is avoided. In these days of ever increasing unemployment, hundreds of applications are received for one post. To allow all the candidates holding minimum qualifications for the posts to appear at the written test or the interviews is simply not only impracticable but almost and an impossible task. It also involves tremendous wastage of time, money and energy. The short-listing procedure has therefore, gained wide acceptability. Short-listing can be made in two ways (i) by prescribing the maximum number of candidates in order of merit who could be allowed to take the main examination or (ii) or fixing minimum qualifying marks which may be called cut-off marks for deciding as to who can appear at the main examination. All this becomes necessary when the number of candidates is large as compared to the seats available. When the number of qualifying candidates available is less, problem of short-listing should not arise. In the present case, when the number of candidates available in the categories of SC and ST and OBC are not even fifteen times the number of posts available for them, there is indeed no rationale behind prescribing cut-off marks at the preliminary examination. It is true that because of Article 335 of the Constitution of India, the power under Article 16(4) is subject to the rider of maintenance of efficiency in the administration and therefore, it is necessary for the State to fix certain minimum standard even for the reserved categories. But this rider cannot apply to preliminary examination and could apply to the main examination because only some one is allowed to complete at the main examination he does not get automatically inducted in the Government Service and giving a chance to appear in the main examination does not interfere with or lower down the standard of administrative efficiency." 43. In Chattar Singh and Ors. In Chattar Singh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (1996) 11 SCC 742 : ( AIR 1997 SC 303 ) , which has filed against the judgment dated, 30.8.1996 of the Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1579/96, the Government of Rajasthan issued a Notification declaring reservation to the extent of 21% of the posts in various services of State of Rajasthan reserved for the OBCs. Which was given statutory force by Rule 8-A of the Rules of 1962 w.e.f. 28.9.1993. Notification was issued calling applications for recruitment to 275 posts in administrative and subordinate services; of them 137 were for general candidates; 52 for OBCs; 50 for Scheduled Castes and 36 for Scheduled Tribes. On 9.4.1996, Preliminary Examinations were conducted and results of the candidates for final examination were declared. Candidates, belonging to OBCs challenged the vires of the proviso to Rule 13 which prescribes the mode of conducting preliminary as well as main examination. Three contentions were raised before the Supreme Court; (a) the main part of Rule 13 does not speak of any minimum marks so as to enable the candidates to appear in the main examination; (b) Article 16(4) of the Constitution does not specify whether they should belong to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or OBCs and OBC.s. have now been declared eligible for selection under the reserved quota,, having been fused for the purpose of Article 16(4) and that their elimination under proviso to Rule 13 is arbitrary, violating their fundamental right to equally enshrined in Articles 14, 16(1) and 16(4) (C). Once the reservation was prescribed to various categories, namely. Scheduled Castes. Scheduled Tribes and OBCs under Article 16(4), the Public Services commission, is required to prepared a separate list,of the candidates while declaring the result of the Preliminary Examination and to call candidates numbering 15 times the total posts earmarked for them and the candidates securing mini mum of the marks should he called to appear in the main examinations. 44. Scheduled Tribes and OBCs under Article 16(4), the Public Services commission, is required to prepared a separate list,of the candidates while declaring the result of the Preliminary Examination and to call candidates numbering 15 times the total posts earmarked for them and the candidates securing mini mum of the marks should he called to appear in the main examinations. 44. On behalf of the RPSC it was contended that under the main part of Rule 13 the Public Service Commission could prescribe minimum cut-off marks out of the aggregate marks secured by the general candidates in the Preliminary Examination conducted and from amongst the candidates who obtain such minimum qualifying marks as may be fixed by the Commission in their discretion and candidates numbering 15 times the posts shall be summoned by them for Main Examination. It is also contended that though OBCs were declared eligible for the selection to the said services and had 21% of the vacancies reserved for them, the OBCs and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are distinct classes. It is further contended that there is no need to prepare a separate list of various categories for which the recruitment was called for, which became necessary only as per the amended rule under the notification dated, 2.4.1996, which is only prospective. Therefore, it does not apply to the recruitment for the year 1991. The Supreme Court held that the object of screening test is to eliminate unduly long number of persons to appear for Main Examinations and if more candidates are called by declaring result in preliminary examinations, the object of Rule 13 would be frustrated. As regards treatment of OBCs. SC/ST candidates in regard to 5% cut-off marks in the Preliminary Examination under proviso to Rule 13 (the Supreme Court held that the proviso to Rule 13) confines 5% further cut-off marks in the preliminary examination from the lowest range fixed for general candidates and it is confined only to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who could not secure the total aggregate marks on a par with the general candidates; the rule expressly confines the benefit of the proviso to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and by process of interpretation the OBCs cannot be declared alike the SC/ST candidates. The Supreme Court held that it would be illogical and unrealistic to think that omission to provide same benefits to OBCs. The Supreme Court held that it would be illogical and unrealistic to think that omission to provide same benefits to OBCs. as was provided to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was void under Articles 16(1) and 14 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the OBCs are not entitled to 5% cut-off marks in preliminary examination as provided under proviso to Rule 13. In the concluding part of the judgment the Supreme Court was of the view that separate lists are required to be published by the Service Commission in respect of the candidates in the respective categories so as to make up number of candidates 15 times the notified or anticipated posts/vacancies so as to enable them to appear in the Main Examination. 45. Mr. Rajendra Soni, learned counsel appearing for one of the writ petitioner, cited two decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, reported in Jaskaran Singh v. State of Punjab, 1995 (2) SCT 65 and Major Phalit Sharma v. State of Haryana, 1998 (2) SLR 321 . In the case of Jaskaran Singh v. State (supra), the Division Bench of the said Court held that the candidates belonging to reserve categories are entitled to the seats from general category if they get higher merit entitling them to the seat in general category and reserved categories cannot be restricted to only the reserved seats and the instructions imposing such restrictions are violative of Article 14 and go against the interest of the reserved categories." 10. Perusal of the judgment reveals that it is not only in reference to the judgment of this Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Gehlot (supra) but judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chattar Singh ( AIR 1997 SC 303 ) (supra) has also been considered. The Division Bench in the case of Dharmveer Tholia (2001 Lab IC 1292 (Raj) (supra) made discussion between list after preliminary examination for short listing and final merit list after conclusion of main examination. The issue was considered elaborately in the case of Vijay Kumar Gehlot (supra) also where preliminary examination for short listing was taken into consideration. Therein, it was held that the rider of Article 16(4) of the Constitution cannot apply to the preliminary examination. 11. The issue was considered elaborately in the case of Vijay Kumar Gehlot (supra) also where preliminary examination for short listing was taken into consideration. Therein, it was held that the rider of Article 16(4) of the Constitution cannot apply to the preliminary examination. 11. It is necessary to understand difference between preliminary examination and the main examination to find out as to whether principle as envisaged under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India applies to all spheres of selection. This Court considered the issue even in the case of Bhawani Singh Kaviya and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported as 2008 (4) RLW 3138 : (2008 Lab IC 3504 (Raj)) . Therein, meaning of word 'general category' was considered. Various judgments of the Supreme Court are referred in paras 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the judgment. It was found that general category means category of candidates who acquired position in order of their merit irrespective as to whether they belong to open or reserve category. The principle evolved by this Court in the case of Bhawani Singh Kaviya (supra) is based on the judgment of the Supreme Court, however, reservation does not apply for short listing. If reservation does not apply for short listing then meaning of the word `general category' cannot be applied rather to be applied when reservation is to be given. It was considered and decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dharmveer Tholia (2001 Lab IC 1292 (Raj)) (supra) and, for that purpose, interpretation of Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999 has been given. It was held therein that Article 16(4) of the Constitution for reservation does not apply to every sphere of selection and the same view was taken even by this Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Gehlot (supra), which is by the Larger Bench. 12. Learned single Judge, while deciding the case of Bhawani Singh Kaviya (2008 Lab IC 3504 (Raj)) (supra) has not given reason to differ from the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Dharmveer Tholia (2001 Lab IC 1292 (Raj)) (supra) and Vijay Kumar Gehlot (supra) in regard to the issue aforesaid as to whether Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India to provide reservation can be applied even for short listing. It is more specifically when the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dharmveer Tholia (2001 Lab IC 1292 (Raj)) (supra) considered judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, reported as AIR 1993 SC 477 and in the case of R.K. Sabharwal and Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., reported as (1995) 2 SCC 745 : ( AIR 1995 SC 1371 ) apart from many other judgments. It was after applying the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chatter Singh ( AIR 1997 SC 303 ) (supra) where validity of same rule was under challenge and decided holding it to be valid. 13. The principles as laid down by this Court in the case of Bhawani Singh Kaviya (2008 Lab IC 3504 (Raj)) applies for providing vertical reservation. The reservation is provided in appointment and not for the purpose of short listing of the candidates. Para 23 of the judgment in the case of Bhawani Singh Kaviya (supra) makes a reference of Article 335 of the Constitution of India whereas interpretation of the aforesaid Article and its applicability has been dealt with by the Supreme Court subsequently in the case of Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Baloji Badhavath & Ors. reported in (2009) 5 SCC 1 . Relevant para 30 of the said judgment are quoted hereunder to show that aforesaid Article apply in the case of promotion- "30. The proviso appended to Article 335 of the Constitution, to which our attention has been drawn by Mr. Rao, cannot be said to have any application whatsoever in this case. Lowering of marks for the candidates belonging to the reserved candidates 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. While doing so, in regard to General English whereas the minimum qualifying marks are 40% for OCs, it would be 35% for BCs and 30% for SC/STs and physically handicapped persons. However, those marks were not to be counted for ranking." 14. Those who possess the basic eligibility would be entitled to appear at the main examination. While doing so, in regard to General English whereas the minimum qualifying marks are 40% for OCs, it would be 35% for BCs and 30% for SC/STs and physically handicapped persons. However, those marks were not to be counted for ranking." 14. In view of what has been discussed above, I am unable to apply judgment in the case of Bhawani Singh Kaviya (2008 Lab IC 3504 (Raj)) (supra), in view of the judgment of the Division Bench on the same issue and in reference of the same provision. None of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred in the case of Bhawani Singh Kaviya (supra) deal with Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999 so as to render judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Dharmveer Tholia (2001 Lab IC 1292 (Raj)) to be per incuriam. I am unable to take a different view than taken by the Division Bench so as the Larger Bench in the case of Dharmveer Tholia and Vijay Kumar Gehlot (supra). 15. It is in the circumstance when the moot issue in reference to short listing was not argued before this Court in the case of Bhawani Singh Kaviya (2008 Lab IC 3504 (Raj)) (supra). If para 18 of the judgment in the case of Bhawani Singh Kaviya (supra) is looked into, the judgment in the case of R. K. Sabharwal ( AIR 1995 SC 1371 ) has been referred therein, which shows that percentage of reservation is fixed in the particular cadre and roster indicates the reserve point for appointment and not for short listing of candidates for main examination. The first two lines of the relevant para of the judgment in the case of Bhawani Singh Kaviya (supra) clarifies that reservation applies on the cadre and reserve point applies at the time of making appointment thus not at the initial stage of selection for short listing but at the final stage for appointment. 16. In the background aforesaid, reservation applies while making appointment and not at every stage of selection, more so when preliminary examination is meant for short listing. 17. 16. In the background aforesaid, reservation applies while making appointment and not at every stage of selection, more so when preliminary examination is meant for short listing. 17. In the light of the discussion made above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition more so when all the issues raised were elaborately discussed and decided by the Division Bench in the case of Dharmveer Tholia (2001 Lab IC 1292 (Raj)) more specifically in pars 49 of the said judgment, wherein, it was categorically held that reservation policy provided under Article 16(4) of the Constitution as well as the judgment of the Apex Court do not apply and provide assistance for the purpose of short listing but apply for making final select list. Paras 49 and 51 of the judgment in the case of Dharmveer Tholia (supra) are quoted hereunder and I am unable to take a divergent view from the aforesaid - "49. Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999 provides the procedure to prepare the list of candidates for appearing in the main examination, therefore, the result of the preliminary examination cannot be considered to be a final result. In regard to the submission made by the Senior counsel for the petitioner about the reservation policy provided under Article 16(4) of the Constitution as well as the judgments cited are not in dispute but the same in our view, will not be of any help or assistance to the petitioners at this stage of short listing. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on by the petitioner in Sabharwal's case ( AIR 1995 SC 1371 ) (supra) pertains to the promotion policy and also of the vacancies based on roster system which in our opinion, will be applicable only at the time of preparing the final select list. As per Rule 15. the RPSC shall permit the candidates 15 times the total approximate number of vacancies in each category in the main examination and this Rule has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Chattar Singh's case ( AIR 1997 SC 303 ) (supra). The reservation policy is meant for recruitment only and there is no other reservation policy for short listing in examination. As such, the actions of the RPSC are within the mandate of Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India as well as the Rules of 1999. The reservation policy is meant for recruitment only and there is no other reservation policy for short listing in examination. As such, the actions of the RPSC are within the mandate of Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India as well as the Rules of 1999. If the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted, the thousands of meritorious candidates who have been selected as per the preliminary examination will be affected and their interest will be jeopardized. 51. As held by the Supreme Court, the list of candidates belonging to one category cannot be shifted to another category on the basis of their merit as the list of successful candidates in the preliminary examination is meant only for short-listing the candidates for the main examination and it does not constitute merit of the candidates which is done at the time of preparation of final merit under Rule 17 of the Rules. If the contention of the petitioners is accepted that instead of preparing separate list for each category. a list should be prepared on the basis of overall merit attained by the candidates appearing in the preliminary examination, it would result in exclusion of 1498 candidates from the general category and in their place 1051 candidates from OBC category will be shifted to the general category; 137 candidates from SC category will also be shifted to the general category and similarly. 175 from the ST category shall have to be shifted to the general category. In addition to that, in general category, the female candidates who have secured higher cut-off marks fixed for the general category (male) shall also be shifted to the general category (male) in the number of 157. It is also seen from Para 9 that if the revision is to take place in accordance with the interpretation put forward by the petitioners, the cut-off marks in each cat egory shall have to be revised in the following manner:- CUT-OFF MARKS Revised: Male Female 1. General 216 139 2. SCs. 158 90 3. STs. 166 72 4. OBCs 185 132 Existing: 1. General 203 144 2. SCs 163 913. STs 174 72 4. OBCs 204 136" 18. General 216 139 2. SCs. 158 90 3. STs. 166 72 4. OBCs 185 132 Existing: 1. General 203 144 2. SCs 163 913. STs 174 72 4. OBCs 204 136" 18. Perusal of the two paras quoted above keep no room for me to take a different view on the issue and, otherwise also, I am bound by the judgments of the Division Bench and Larger Bench of this Court thus unable to apply view taken by this Court in the case of Bhawani Singh Kaviya (2008 Lab IC 3504 (Raj)) (supra). 19. In view of discussion made above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Hence. it is dismissed. 20. A copy of this order may be sent to the Chairman, Rajasthan Public Service Commission so that it may proceed with the selection as per the view taken by this Court in the case of Dharmveer Tholia (2001 Lab IC 1292 (Raj)) (supra).Petition dismissed. *******