JUDGMENT Hon’ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.—The petitioner, an Advocate who claims to belong to OBC category, and practising in the Judgeship of Faizabad District, has preferred the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the result of U.P. Higher Judicial Services Examination, 2009 (in short U.P.H.J.S. Examination, 2009) as well as the relevant provisions contained in Appendix G of the U.P. Higher Judicial Services Rules, 1975 (in short the HJS Rules) providing 50% cut off marks in written test as condition precedent to make a candidate eligible to appear for interview. 2. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: “1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the result of U.P. H.J.S. main examination 2009 declared by the respondent No. 5 on 6.12.2009, contained in Annexure 3. 2. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Appendix “G” of U.P.H.J.S. Rule 1975 which provides a 50% compulsory cut off mark for the candidates of every category. 3. Issue a writ order are direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 5 to make a fresh list of reserved category candidates lowering the cut off mark in favour of reserved category candidates. 4. Issue any other writ, order or direction which may be found justified by this Hon’ble Court in view of the circumstances of the case. 5. Award the cost of petition.” 3. The U.P.H.J.S., Examination, 2009 was advertised on 15.4.2009 inviting applications from eligible candidates with continuous practice of 7 years at Bar. After written test, result was declared on 6.12.2009. According to it, 69 candidates succeeded. The copy of impugned select list of the written examination has been attached as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. In pursuance of the aforesaid select list, interview was scheduled and held between 20th and 23rd December, 2010 and admittedly, after approval from the “Full Court”, the final select list was released on 9.1.2009. In pursuance thereof, the selectees joined in January, 2010. It is further admitted that fresh selection of U.P.H.J.S. Was held in 2012, select list has been approved by the Full Court of High Court and successful candidates are likely to join very soon. 4. In pursuance thereof, the selectees joined in January, 2010. It is further admitted that fresh selection of U.P.H.J.S. Was held in 2012, select list has been approved by the Full Court of High Court and successful candidates are likely to join very soon. 4. The impugned provision as contained in Appendix-G of the Rules, providing 50% cut off mark across the categories, is reproduced as under: “Paper No. 6: Interview The interview will be of 100 marks—The suitability of the candidate for employment in the U.P. Higher Judicial Service will be tested with reference to his merit giving due regard to his ability, character, personality and physique. Note: The cut off marks in the written examination shall be 50 per cent in respect of all categories and candidates securing the marks above the cut off marks shall only be called for the interview. The interview shall be in a thorough and Scientific manner and shall take anything between 25 and 30 minutes for each candidates. The marks obtained in the interview will be added to the marks obtained in the written papers and the candidates place will depend on the aggregate of both.” 5. According to the petitioner, who appeared in person before this Court, the fixing of cut off marks is unreasonable and unconstitutional so far as the candidates belonging to OBC category are concerned. The respondents should have reduced the cut off marks for reserved category to enable maximum candidates, to participate in the interview. Further argument is that only 10 to 12 candidates succeeded for interview of all reserved categories against the existing vacancies of 40. He further submits that in 2007, 41 vacancies out of 82 vacancies were filled up from reserved category. It is stated that Selection Committee has to take into account the professional ability, character and personality test, as well as health. Hence, cut off marks of reserved category should be lowered down. Strict compliance of cut off marks frustrates the relevance of reservation and irrational keeping in view the 7 years professional experience fixed for appearing in UPHJS examination. 6. The petitioner has also questioned that candidates from Role No. 5000 to 6000 had passed written examination but no candidate passed from Role No. 661 to 2559. Strict compliance of cut off marks frustrates the relevance of reservation and irrational keeping in view the 7 years professional experience fixed for appearing in UPHJS examination. 6. The petitioner has also questioned that candidates from Role No. 5000 to 6000 had passed written examination but no candidate passed from Role No. 661 to 2559. While assailing the impugned select list of successful candidates of written test, he relied upon the Apex Court in the case in Sanjay Singh and another v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and another, (2007) 3 SCC 720 and advanced his argument to the effect that the examiners variable is a reality and it should be removed through proper moderation. 7. Sri Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for High Court, raised preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable for the reason that the impugned list (Annexure 3) contains the names of selected candidates who qualified in written test and after interview, substantial number of candidates have been selected and joined after declaration of result and, any order passed by this Court, shall affect the prospect of selected candidates. He further submits that the petitioner himself appeared in U.P.H.J.S. Examination, 2009, being fully conversant with the impugned provisions of Rules and filed writ petition only after being unsuccessful. He further submits that the result prepared by the Selection Committee and the Appointment Committee, is strictly on merit and in accordance with Rules. The judgment of Sanjay Singh (supra), has been followed in its letter and spirit. 8. Sri Manish Kumar learned counsel for the High Court further submits that even answer-sheets were rechecked to remove any possible irregularity. The model answer papers were prepared by the Examination Committee and provided to the Examiners with answer-sheets. The Examiners examined the answer-sheets of the candidates on the basis of model answers provided to them. Accordingly, the allegation with regard to variation in allotment of mark, is baseless. 9. Learned counsel representing State and High Court submits that different cut off marks in some of the High Courts of the country, does not create a ground to claim parity. The Rule has been prepared and framed in pursuance of Full Court resolution of the High Court and in tune with the Apex Court judgment. 9. Learned counsel representing State and High Court submits that different cut off marks in some of the High Courts of the country, does not create a ground to claim parity. The Rule has been prepared and framed in pursuance of Full Court resolution of the High Court and in tune with the Apex Court judgment. Learned counsel further submits that in 2009, 41 backlog vacancies were published out of which, 10 belonged to general category, 15 belong to SC category, 2 belong to ST category and 15 belong to OBC category. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that backlog is only of reserved category. Keeping in view the pleading contained in counter-affidavit, learned counsel further submits that out of 27 backlog vacancies, 14 fall in general category, 6 to SC category and 7 to OBC category which were advertised in accordance with Rules. It is incorrect to say that no candidate of the reserved category, was selected in the last year. He further submits that after the examination was held strictly in accordance with rules, the result was declared and it does not suffer from any impropriety or illegality. 10. The petitioner who appears in person, relied upon the cases in Olga Tellis and others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and others, (1985) 3 SCC 545 ; E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another, (1974) 4 SCC 3 ; Menka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 507; Direct Recruitment Class-II Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 SCC 715 ; Raj Kumar v. Shakti Raj, AIR 1997 SC 2110 ; Dharam Pal Singh Chauhan v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 26 (2) LCD 1691; Smt. Shila Devi and another v. State of U.P., 2010 28 (2) LCD 1188 (FB); Dharam Pal Satyapal Ltd. v. State of Bihar and others, 2008 (7) SCC 19 ; State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shyam Sunder, 2011 (8) SCC 737 ; Rakesh Wadhvan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corp., 2002 (5) SCC 440 ; 2001 (2) SCC 41 . 11. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the cases in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation v. Rajesh Kumar and others, 2012 (7) SCC 1 ; Sanjay Singh and another v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and another, 2007 (3) SCC 720 ; Dharam Pal Singh Chauhan v. State, 2008 (26) SCC 1681; Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, (2011) 1 SCC 150 ; Union of India v. S. Vinod Kumar and others, (2007) 8 SCC 100 ; K.H. Siraj v. High Court, Kerala and others, (2006) 6 SCC 395 ; Chandra Prakash Tiwari and others v. Shakuntala Shukla and others, (2002) 6 SCC 127 ; Girish Srivastava and others v. State of M.P. and others, (2010) 10 SCC 707 ; Public Service Commission v. Mamta Bisht and others, (2010) 12 SCC 204 ; A.P. Public Service Commission v. Balaji Badhavath, (2009) 5 SCC 1 ; Ramesh Kumar v. High Court of Delhi, (2010) 3 SCC 104 ; State of U.P. v. Mcdowel and Co., (1996) 3 SCC 709 ; Goa Class Fibre Ltd. v. State of Goa and another, (2010) 6 SCC 499 . MAINTAINABILITY OF WRIT PETITION 12. In the case of K.H. Siraj (supra), the controversy before the Hon’be Supreme Court was with regard to a case where recruitment and selection procedure was impugned in the High Court. While holding the right of High Court to prescribe minimum pass mark for written and oral examination in order to get best available talent, their lordship of Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where a candidate could not be selected because of securing marks less than prescribed minimum, no relief can be granted merely because of sympathy. Their lordship further held that unsuccessful candidates firstly, may not challenge the Rules relying upon which he or she appeared in the examination and secondly, High Court may not exercise jurisdiction or pass an order against the persons who have been selected but not impleaded as respondents in the writ petition. Their lordship opined that in case the High Court followed the Rules and performed its duty in having best available talent chosen for the subordinate judiciary, the standard adopted by the High Court, should not be diluted. In para 75 of the judgment, their lordship held that writ petition in the High Court was not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties also. In para 75 of the judgment, their lordship held that writ petition in the High Court was not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties also. After considering earlier judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, their lordships held that in case a person participate in the examination and becomes unsuccessful then, he or she may not ordinarily impugn the process of examination. Of course, in case the examination is conducted arbitrarily, mala fide with oblique motive or to give undue advantage to someone, in such a situation, the Court may interfere on behalf of unsuccessful candidates also. 13. In the case of S. Vinod Kumar (supra) while holding that the competent authority has power to fix the cut off marks in an examination, their lordships ruled that those candidates who had taken part in selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein, are not entitled to question the same. Relevant portion from the case of S. Vinod Kumar (supra), is reproduced as under: “11. Respondents herein had approached the Tribunal in the year 2000. The Tribunal directed the appellants to consider this case of lowering of the cut-off marks. An inference, therefore, can be drawn from the aforementioned fact that the main prayer of the respondents was that the cut-off marks should be lowered. Appellants admittedly did not agree to the said proposal. The action of the appellants impugned before the Tribunal must, therefore, be considered from the view point as to whether it had the requisite jurisdiction to do so. The Tribunal upheld the contention of the appellant. Once it is held that the appellants had the requisite jurisdiction to fix the cut-off marks, the necessary corollary thereof would be that it could not be directed to lower the same. It is trite that it is for the employer or the expert body to determine the cut-off marks. The Court while exercising its power of judicial review would not ordinarily intermeddle therewith. The jurisdiction of the Court, in this behalf, is limited. The cut-off marks fixed will depend upon the importance of the subject for the post in question. It is permissible to fix different cut-off marks for different categories of candidates. [See Banking Service Recruitment Board, Madras v. V. Ramalingam and others, (1998) 8 SCC 523 ]. 13. The jurisdiction of the Court, in this behalf, is limited. The cut-off marks fixed will depend upon the importance of the subject for the post in question. It is permissible to fix different cut-off marks for different categories of candidates. [See Banking Service Recruitment Board, Madras v. V. Ramalingam and others, (1998) 8 SCC 523 ]. 13. Even assuming that the appellants should have filled up the unfilled vacancies meant for the reserved category candidates by the general candidates, but then for the said purpose, the general candidates were required to fulfill the eligibility clause including the cut-off marks fixed therefor. Respondents admittedly did not do so. The High Court, in our opinion, committed a serious error in directing the appellants to lower the cut-off marks. The cut-off mark 20 was fixed for the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe candidates. The same was not meant to be applied to the general category candidates. The jurisdiction of the appellants to fix different cut-off marks for different category of candidates has never been questioned and in that view of the matter only because the Railway Board had issued a circular as far back as in the year 1976 to fill up the vacancies by unreserved candidates in the event the reserved category of candidates was not available therefor, in our opinion, the same would not mean that irrespective of the qualification and performance of general category candidates they were entitled to be appointed. 18. It is also well-settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same. [See Munindra Kumar and others v. Rajiv Govil and others, AIR 1991 SC 1607 ]. [See also Rashmi Mishra v. Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission and others, 2006 (11) SCALE 5 ].” 14. In the case of Chandra Prakash Tiwari (supra), their lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that the general principle of estoppel is not applicable to the candidates who appeared in the examination but a candidate has no right to challenge the appointment or selection in case he or she appeared in the examination without protest and subsequently, found to be not successful in the examination. To quote relevant portion of para 32 as under: “32. ... To quote relevant portion of para 32 as under: “32. ... It is to be noticed at this juncture that while the doctrine of estoppel by conduct may not have any application but that does not bar a contention as regards the right to challenge an appointment upon due participation at the interview/selection. It is a remedy which stands barred and it is in this perspective in Om Prakash Shukla (Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and others, a Three Judge Bench of this Court laid down in no uncertain terms that when a candidate appears at the examination without protest and subsequently found to be not successful in the examination, question of entertaining a Petition challenging the said examination would not arise. 15. In the case of Vijendra KumarVerma (supra), the controversy before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was with regard to validity of procedure adopted by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission with regard to eligibility criteria. While considering the dispute on behalf of unsuccessful candidates, their lordship held that a candidate appearing in examination in pursuance of advertisement, should look into the advertisement cautiously and apply only when he or she is satisfied. After appearing in the examination and on being unsuccessful, the candidate does not possess right to challenge the Rules more so, without impleading the successful candidates. Relying upon the previous judgments (supra) their lordships held that writ petition was not maintainable. 16. In the case of Girish Srivastava (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court held that High Court ought not to decide the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the person who would be vitally affected by the judgment being before it as respondents..” Their lordships had relied upon earlier cases in Prabodh Verma and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (1984) 4 SCC 251 ; Ramarao and others v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association and others, (2004) 2 SCC 76 ; B. Ramanjini and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2002) 5 SCC 533 . 17. In another case Mamta Bisht (supra), their lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court, reiterated the principle of law that High Court could not entertain a writ petition, in case selected candidates are not impleaded as party. 18. 17. In another case Mamta Bisht (supra), their lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court, reiterated the principle of law that High Court could not entertain a writ petition, in case selected candidates are not impleaded as party. 18. Long back Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case in Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member, Board Of Revenue, Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 786 , in response to distinction between necessary party, proper party and pro forma party, held that if a person who is likely to suffer from order of the Court and has not been impleaded as party, has right to ignore said order. In the case of Udit Narain (supra), while relying upon “The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies”, their lordships defined the necessary parties as under : “11. ... In “The law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies” by Ferris, the procedure in the matter of impleading parties is clearly described at p.201 thus: “Those parties whose action is to be reviewed and who are interested therein and affected thereby, and in whose possession the record of Such action remains, are not only proper, but necessary parties. It is to such parties that notice to show-cause against the issuance of the writ must be given, and they are the only parties who may make return, or who may demur. The omission to make parties those officers whose proceedings it is sought to direct and control, goes to the very right of the relief sought. But in order that the Court may do ample and complete justice, and render judgment which will be binding on all persons concerned, all persons who are parties to the record, or who are interested in maintaining the regularity of the proceedings of which a review is sought, should be made parties respondent.” Hon’ble Supreme Court further proceeded to hold as under: “12. To summarize: in a writ of certiorari not only the tribunal or authority whose order is sought to be quashed but also parties in whose favour the said order is issued are necessary parties. But it is in the discretion of the Court to add or implead proper parties for completely settling all the questions that may be involved in the controversy either suo motu or on the application of a party to the writ or an application filed at the instance of such proper party.” 19. But it is in the discretion of the Court to add or implead proper parties for completely settling all the questions that may be involved in the controversy either suo motu or on the application of a party to the writ or an application filed at the instance of such proper party.” 19. In the case of K.H. Siraj (supra), same principle of law has been reiterated and it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that no order may be passed against selectees unless opportunity of hearing is given to them. To reproduce relevant portion of the said judgment as under : “72. The appellants/petitioners, in any event, are not entitled to any relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for more reasons than one. They had participated in the written test and in the oral test without raising any objection. They knew well from the High Court’s Notification that a minimum marks had to be secured both at the written test and in the oral test. They were also aware of the High Court decision on the judicial side in Remany v. High Court of Kerala. This case deals with prescription of minimum qualifying marks of 30% for viva voce test. C.S. Rajan, J., in the above judgment, observed as under: (KLT pp. 441-42, para 5) “On the basis of the aggregate marks in both the tests, the selection has to be made. In I.C.A.R case, also the relevant rules did not enable the selection Board to prescribe minimum qualifying marks to be obtained by the candidate at the viva voce test. In Delhi Judicial Service case also Umesh Chandra the rules did not empower the committee to exclude candidates securing less than 600 marks in the aggregate. Therefore, in all these cases, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that prescription of separate minimum marks for viva voce test is bad in law because under the rules, no minimum qualifying marks were prescribed.” The High Court also relied on P.K. Ramachandra Iyer case and Umesh Chandra case. 73. The appellants/petitioners having participated in the interview in this background, it is not open to the appellants/petitioners to turn round thereafter when they failed at the interview and contend that the provision of a minimum mark for the interview was not proper. 73. The appellants/petitioners having participated in the interview in this background, it is not open to the appellants/petitioners to turn round thereafter when they failed at the interview and contend that the provision of a minimum mark for the interview was not proper. It was so held by this Court in paragraph 9 of Madan Lal and others v. State of J & K, as under: (SCC p.493) “9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being respondents concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up to this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The Petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitions as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well-settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protect and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner.” 74. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the appellants/petitioners should be dismissed on the ground of estoppel is correct in view of the above ruling of this Court. The decision of the High Court holding to the contrary is in per curiam without reference to the aforesaid decisions.” 20. While defending his right, the petitioner has also advanced his argument on the question of maintainability. The petitioner has relied upon the case of Sanjay Singh (supra). The decision of the High Court holding to the contrary is in per curiam without reference to the aforesaid decisions.” 20. While defending his right, the petitioner has also advanced his argument on the question of maintainability. The petitioner has relied upon the case of Sanjay Singh (supra). In the case of Sanjay Singh (supra), the petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in the Hon’ble Supreme Court by unsuccessful candidates who appeared in the examination for the recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The controversy relates to evaluation of answer script of each subjects distributed to each examiner for evaluation. The mark assigned to examinees, were subject to statistical scaling and the result of the written examination was based on such scaled marks. The result was declared and appointments were made to 347 candidates for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The petitioners including Sanjay Singh, were unsuccessful candidates. The ground of challenge was that scaling system adopted by the Commission, is illegal being contrary to the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2001. It was asserted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the candidates that by applying an arbitrary, irrational and inappropriate scaling formula, gross injustice was done to examinees and because of scaled marks, and the candidates could not get selection. In consequence of appreciating the argument advanced by the parties, the scaling of marks was held to be unlawful. Their lordship issued direction with the observation that judgment will not affect the selection and appointment already made in pursuance of 2003 examination. The finding has been recorded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that scaling was not permissible under rule. A new system was introduced by Hon’ble Supreme Court i.e., moderation of answer-sheets. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the candidates who become successful in pursuance of judgment, shall be considered for appointment against future vacancies. The relief was confined to the persons who approached the Court. 21. The case of Sanjay Singh (supra) is entirely based on different facts and circumstances. In the present case, nothing has been done by the respondents, de hors the Rules. It is not the petitioner’s case that Rules have been violated. Instead, the validity of Rule has been impugned by the petitioner for lowering of cut off marks. 21. The case of Sanjay Singh (supra) is entirely based on different facts and circumstances. In the present case, nothing has been done by the respondents, de hors the Rules. It is not the petitioner’s case that Rules have been violated. Instead, the validity of Rule has been impugned by the petitioner for lowering of cut off marks. Accordingly, the case of Sanjay Singh (supra) does not seem to extend any help to the petitioner to make the writ petition maintainable. Moreover, while filing counter-affidavit, respondents stated that model answers were circulated to the examiners to remove variation in evaluation. Circulation of model answers almost removed the chances of variation to negligible state in evaluation of marks. Proper precaution seems to have been taken by the respondents High Court. Hence, Sanjay Singh’s case (supra) seems to be not attracted under the facts of the present case. 22. Since we are of the view that the writ petition is not maintainable, we are not considering all the cases cited by parties, during course of hearing of merit. We also do not record a finding on merit over the issue raised and leave it open. 23. Apart from the fact that the writ petition is barred because of non-joinder of necessary party, there is one other aspect of the matter. Annexure 3 is the impugned select list of the selected candidates who qualified the written examination. The cause of action arose from the impugned list of selected candidates, who qualified written examination. At the time of filing of writ petition, the petitioner was having full knowledge of the names of the candidates who have qualified written examination but for the reasons best known to him, he had not impleaded them as party. 24. There would have been a way to pursue the writ petition in case by an interim order, this Court would have subjected the selection and appointment by the High Court to its further order, but that is not the present case. In spite of repeated query made and opportunity given to the petitioner while appearing in person, he could not take notice of the pulse regulating the outcome of justice. The petitioner could have impleaded by moving appropriate application even after receipt of counter where an objection has been raised with regard to non-joinder of necessary party but he has failed to do so. 25. The petitioner could have impleaded by moving appropriate application even after receipt of counter where an objection has been raised with regard to non-joinder of necessary party but he has failed to do so. 25. In view of the discussions made as above, in case any one of the reliefs which the petitioner sought for in the present writ petition, is allowed, it shall require fresh interview of the candidates who, in pursuance of the impugned select list (Annexure 3) containing the name of selected candidates in the U.P.H.J.S. written examination, 2009, have already joined. The result of U.P.H.J.S., 2011 has also been declared and candidates have been selected and they are likely to resume duty very soon. At such stage, when the petitioner even in representative capacity, has not impleaded any person whose names are contained in the impugned select list (Annexure 3), the writ petition seems to be not maintainable because of non-joinder of necessary parties. 26. In view of the above, there appears to be no reason to record a finding on merit with regard to other issue raised by the petitioner which shall be only academic. No relief may be granted to the petitioner by this Court in absence of necessary parties in terms of impugned select list (Annexure 3). Hence we are not recording any finding with regard to validity of the impugned provisions contained in the Rules. 27. However, keeping in view the fact that selection is for appointment on the post falling under H.J.S. cadre, the quality and merit of the candidate has paramount consideration and as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the High Court has right to fix cut off marks to cope up with the standard of the judiciary by choosing best talents (supra). 28. While parting with the judgment, it shall be appropriate to make certain observations. During the course of hearing, certain queries were made by the Court with regard to judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney’s case (1992 Supp (3) SCC 217: Indira Sawhney and others v. Union of India). The petitioner who appeared in person, replied that though he has tried to go through it but because of bulky judgment, he could not go through it. The statement given by the petitioner shows that the Government must take some affirmative action for upliftment of OBC and SC candidates. The petitioner who appeared in person, replied that though he has tried to go through it but because of bulky judgment, he could not go through it. The statement given by the petitioner shows that the Government must take some affirmative action for upliftment of OBC and SC candidates. Mere reservation shall not inculcate the spirit and zeal to make the reserved category candidates, a hard task master. Ordinarily, even if a judgment is bulky or big one, lawyers are supposed to read it overnight to become acquainted with the law and for that, a spirit is to be imbibed by taking affirmative action and due training under the command of successful lawyers. Every person who joins the profession of law or any profession, possesses full freedom to develop his intelligence and knowledge. The requirement is necessary assistance like books, journals and guidelines by the seniors. Unless the reserved category candidates are trained to become a hard task master and inculcate knowledge to become at par with other sections of society as Dr. Ambedkar and Dr. R.M. Lohia have done, mere reservation shall not fulfil the object to meet the equality clause of the Constitution of India. 29. Swami Vivekanand said that the country suffered because of oppression of masses for centuries. He appreciated and said that two great men in ancient India were Krishna and Buddha who opened the door of knowledge to everyone irrespective of birth or sex. Meaning thereby, only the inculcation of knowledge of varieties of subject or specialised fields, shall uplift the OBC and SC candidates and not the reservation. The Government should take affirmative action to uplift the OBC and SC, ST and not only the reservation. Success may be achieved by appropriate affirmative action to meet out their requirements which may generate confidence and make them laborious to share in the development of the country. For professionals like advocates and doctors, the Government should provide assistance in the form of books, journals and related materials so that while joining profession, in private sector, they may not be handicapped because of lack of necessary books, journals or other materials. 30. Our experience shows that not only the professionals falling under the category of OBC, SC and ST but also the members of other economically weaker sections of the society, cannot march parallel to other professionals who belong to affluent families. 30. Our experience shows that not only the professionals falling under the category of OBC, SC and ST but also the members of other economically weaker sections of the society, cannot march parallel to other professionals who belong to affluent families. For a good professionals not only the guidance of senior advocates or senior persons of the field is required but simultaneously they require books, journals and related instruments or materials which they may use while discharging their professional obligations. In the absence of financial assistance the persons of these categories are not in a position to imbibe the knowledge of the field. In Dharam Pal Singh Chauhan (supra), this Court had opined for extensive affirmative action for reserved category. Therefore, it shall be appropriate for the State Government to consider the following affirmative action : (1) provide financial aid to the lawyers and professionals of other field like medical belonging to OBC, SC, ST and other economically weaker sections of society to create their own library and purchase instruments and related materials; (2) Evolve some mechanism so that members of the OBC, SC and ST, and other economically weaker sections of the society joining the profession of law, medical or other, are guided by seniors of the field to inspire them confidence and make them independent; (3) Instruments, journals and other materials may be provided by the Government to the members of OBC, SC, ST and other economically weaker sections of the society immediately after registration to the State Bar Council or Medical Council so that they may not be handicapped in discharge of their professional obligations. 31. Subject to above observations, the writ petition is disposed of being not maintainable. We leave the basic question of law open for adjudication in other case. The Registry of this Court, shall send a copy of this judgment to the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. to consider for appropriate affirmative action for inculcation of knowledge and creation of confidence in the professionals belonging to OBC and SC category, and other economically weaker sections of the society. With the aforesaid observation, we decline to interfere with the impugned order and Rule and dispose of the writ petition finally.