Hon'ble RASTOGI, J.— Since common questions of law are involved arising out of identical facts, hence with a joint consent of the parties, this bunch of special appeals (as per Schedule A) is being disposed by the present order. 2. A cardinal question which emerges for consideration is as to whether a candidate, upon having availed of relaxation in age, acquiring eligibility to participate in the process of selection, besides special relaxation/concessions under the Scheme of Service Rules which participating in competitive examination (written test/viva voce)/process of selection; if secured more marks than of last candidate and finally got placement in select list against vacancies of open/general category, can be considered for being selected against vacancy of unreserved/open category or deserves to be migrated n select list of open/general category vacancy and what will be the effect in the instant bunch of cases regarding Circular dt. 11.5.2011 issued by State Government after the process of selection being initiated with reference to advertisement dt. 14.10.2010 for the post of Constable and advertisement dt. 25.11.2010 for the post of Sub Inspector of Police. • 3. Facts in regard to the posts of Constable are being taken note out of DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 769/2012 and for Sub Inspector (Police) from D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1291/2013 (Devendra Singh & Ors. vs. RPSC), seminal facts which are necessitated to understand the controversy raised at the bar, are briefly stated herein. 4. Posts of Constable & Sub Inspector of Police are included in Schedule-I of Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 ("Rules, 1989"). Posts of Constable for various districts cumulatively came to be advertised by State Government vide advertisement dt. 14.10.2010 while posts of Sub Inspector of Police were advertised vide notification dt. 25.11.2010 by the Rajasthan vide notification dt. 25.11.2010 by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and the candidates who were eligible in terms of the advertisement filled their form after availing relaxation in age and participated in process of selection as provided under the Scheme of Rules, 1989, finally a select list came to be issued but while allocating the vacancies as regard candidates who were finally selected after availing relaxation in age or other special relaxation/concessions in process of selection/competitive examination and finally held merit in open/general category, State Government pursuant to circular dt. 11.5.2011 (in super-session of its earlier Circular dt. 11.5.2011 (in super-session of its earlier Circular dt. 4.3.2002) issued guide-lines to all the appointing authorities that such like candidates belonging to BC/SBC/SC/ST irrespective of whether he/she has availed any of the special concessions which are available to candidates belonging to these categories (including relaxation in age) and secures more marks than the marks obtained by the last unreserved/open category candidates who is selected, shall be migrated against unreserved/open category vacancies and not the vacancies reserved for the BC/SBC/SC/ST, as the case may be. 5. By virtue of clarification dt. 11.5.2011 made by State Government after initiation of process of selection with reference to advertisements in question, number of writ petitions came to be filed before the learned Single Judge with the grievance that such of candidates having availed of relaxation in age or special concession of any kind in course of process of selection/competitive examination in reference to the advertisements in question, even if finally find place in select list of open/general category vacancy are supposed to occupy the seat of reserved category to which they belong; and Circular dt. 11.5.2011 being a later development, the authorties are not competent to change rules of game after the game is played or the process was initiated; and are under obligation to fill the vacancies in terms of Circular issued by State Government in vogue on the date when respective advertisement for the post of Constable/ Sub Inspector of Police were notified by respective appointing authorities. 6. In other words, after process of selection being initiated of posts of Constable & Sub Inspector of Police with reference to the advertisements in question, and while the seats are being finally allocated for appointment against the vacancies reserved for respective categories of open/general & SC/ST/OBC/SBC candidates, State Government intended to invoke its circular dt. 11.5.2011, hence a bunch of writ petitions came to be filed before this Court. • 7. At the threshold, this Court must hasten to note that the controversy as regards relaxation in age having been availed of by the candidates of reserved category enabling them to fall within zone of consideration; came up before learned Single Judge of this Court in Chandra Bhan Yadav vs. State of Raj. • 7. At the threshold, this Court must hasten to note that the controversy as regards relaxation in age having been availed of by the candidates of reserved category enabling them to fall within zone of consideration; came up before learned Single Judge of this Court in Chandra Bhan Yadav vs. State of Raj. (2009(2) WLC (Raj.) 454 and thereafter in Mangala Ram Bishnoi & Others vs. State (2011(1) WLC p. 148) and was finally negated holding that with relaxation in age, the candidates belonging to the reserved category are merely brought within the zone of consideration so as to enable them to appear and participate in the open competition on merit; and once the candidate participates in the open competition, it immaterial as to which category candidate belongs. It was further held that relaxation in age to the reserved category candidate in no manner can be construed as "relaxed standard of merit" affecting maintenance of efficiency in administration. The Court further observed that since the competention does not commence at the stage when relaxation in age or concession in fee are availed of by such reserved category candidate who if finally selected and find place in order of merit on the standards/bench mark provided under the scheme of Service Rules, for general/open category candidates, deserves to be migrated against the seat reserved for open/general category on his own merit. However, it was made further clear that it was only relating to such of candidates who availed of age relaxation or fee concession while filling up their application form and participated in the process of selection/competitive examination. 8. It is relevant to notice that the view expressed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Chandra Bhan Yadav vs. State (2009(2) WLC (Raj.) 454) was assailed by R.P.S.C. in Special appeal No. 92/2009, and that came to be dismissed by Division Bench vide order dt. 21.12.2010. The said controversy thereafter came up for consideration before a learned Single Judge in Mangla Ram Bishnoi vs. State (2011(1) WLC (Raj.) 148) and in Rajendra Prasad Jat vs. State decided vide judgment dt. 9.2.2011 in CWP-10627/2010 relying upon decision of Apex Court in Jitendra Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. ( 2010(3) SCC 119 ). 9. It may be further noticed that in respect of advertisement dt. 9.2.2011 in CWP-10627/2010 relying upon decision of Apex Court in Jitendra Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. ( 2010(3) SCC 119 ). 9. It may be further noticed that in respect of advertisement dt. 14.10.2010 relating to the post of Constable, process of selection was initiated, holding selection at district level in terms of standing order No. 5/2010 dt. 7.10.2010 and select list was declared on 1.7.2011 followed by issuance of appointment order on 20.8.2011; while as regards advertisement dt. 25.11.2010 issued by RPSC holding selection to the post of Sub Inspector/Platoon Commandant of Police, it has come on record that written examination was held on 25.5.2011 followed by interview held from August to October, 2012, merit list was published by RPSC on 25.2.2013, and indisputably, clarification vide Circular dt. 11.5.2011 was issued by the State Government after issuance of advertisements dt.14.10.2010 & dt. 25.11.2010 but during the process of selection. 10. We will come to the Circulars at a bit later stage; however, would like to notice here that whole controversy raised for consideration before the learned Single Judge under the impugned judgment was as to what will be the effect of Circular dt. 11.5.2011 having been issued by State Government subsequent to initiation of process of selection pursuant to both the advertisements in question issued by respective recruiting agencies. • 11. Both the posts of Constable & Sub Inspector of Police, are included in Schedule I appended to the Rules, 1989, besides relaxation in age, as provided for direct recruitment to the service referred to in R. 11 and examination fee as provided in R. 19 of Rules, 1989; it provides further special relaxation/ concession in physique, medical fitness, competitive examination so also in the interview & aptitude test which are availed by reserved category candidates in the process of selection for the post of Constable or Sub Inspector of Police before final select list is prepared. 12. At this stage, it would be pertinent to refer that Circulars issued by State Government provide guidelines and treatment be given to the candidates belonging to BC/SBC/SC/ST candidates prescribed at different point of time vide Circulars dt. 17.6.1996 followed by Circular dt. 4.3.2002, dt. 24.6.2008 & dt. 11.5.2011. 13. As regards post of Constable, Director General of Police in super-session of Standing Order No. 1/2008, its amendments and all related orders, issued instructions vide Standing order No. 5/2010 dt. 17.6.1996 followed by Circular dt. 4.3.2002, dt. 24.6.2008 & dt. 11.5.2011. 13. As regards post of Constable, Director General of Police in super-session of Standing Order No. 1/2008, its amendments and all related orders, issued instructions vide Standing order No. 5/2010 dt. 7.10.2010, laying down procedure for recruitment of Constables in order to maintain uniformity in process of selection at district levels. 14. Writ petitions came to be filed before the learned Single Judge at the stage when final select/merit list was being prepared for allocation of seats to the candidates for their appointment against are respective categories. At that stage, few of candidates upon having secured higher marks than bench marks of open/general category but having either availed of relaxation in age or special relaxations provided at different stages in the process of competitive examination but finally secured higher/equal marks of general/open category, the Government obviously wanted to migrate such candidates in terms of Circulars dt. 11.5.2011, the persons affected approached this Court and their solitary grievance was that Circular dt. 11.5.2011 being subsequently issued, may be in the form of clarification being prospective in nature may not affect the process of selection having been initiated with reference to advertisements in question, the State functionaries were not justified in changing rules of game after the game was played upon initiation of process of selection relying upon judgment of Apex Court in K. Manjusree vs. State of Andh. Pradesh ( 2008(3) SCC 512 ) and the learned Single Judge laid much reliance while delivering the judgment impugned. At this stage it has been brought to our notice that judgment in K. Manjusree vs. State of Andh. Pra. (supra) has been referred to the larger Bench of Tej Prakash Pathak vs. Rajasthan High Court ( 2013(4) SCC 540 ) -that may not be of our consideration while examining the controversy raised herein. • 15. At this stage it has been brought to our notice that judgment in K. Manjusree vs. State of Andh. Pra. (supra) has been referred to the larger Bench of Tej Prakash Pathak vs. Rajasthan High Court ( 2013(4) SCC 540 ) -that may not be of our consideration while examining the controversy raised herein. • 15. After taking note of rival contentions & counter submissions advanced at the bar and taking note of various relaxation including age or concession in fee besides special concessions as provided under the scheme of Rules, 1989, and taking assistance from earlier judgments of this Court, the learned Single Judge was of the view that as regards candidates having availed of relaxation in age or concession in fee, that in no manner change the level playing field and that remains the same; however, at the same time, was of the view that the candidates having availed of special relaxation/ concessions as provided under the scheme of Rules to reserved category candidates while participating n process of selection at the stage of holding qualifying competitive examination, physical or medical fitness test, aptitude test or interview etc., certainly changes the level playing field; and such candidates of reserved category if availed of any of special concessions, if found place in order of merit against open/general category seat, cannot be migrated against open/general category vacancy. But after relying upon the judgment of Apex Court in K. Manjusree vs. State of Andh. Pra. (supra), learned Single Judge finally observed that since Circular was issued on 11.5.2011 after process of selection being initiated pursuant to the advertisement in question, Rules of game cannot be changed in the mids of selection and in that view of the matter, Circular dt. 11.5.2011 in the light of direction referred to in para 1 may be implemented in future selection. 16. It is relevant to quote final directions availed by learned Single Judge here ad infra: In view of the discussion made above, all these writ petitions are partly allowed with the following directions- 1. 11.5.2011 in the light of direction referred to in para 1 may be implemented in future selection. 16. It is relevant to quote final directions availed by learned Single Judge here ad infra: In view of the discussion made above, all these writ petitions are partly allowed with the following directions- 1. The circular dated 11.5.2011 would not be applicable to the present selection in view of the judgment in the case of K. Manjusree (supra), wherein, it was held that rules of game cannot be changed in the midst of selection thus respondents are directed to make appointment without applying circular dated 11.5.2011 in the present matter as initiation of recruitment is prior to the circular dated 11.5.2011 so as the advertisement. The migration of reserve category candidates to open/general category can be permitted as per earlier circular dated 24.6.2008 and Standing Order applicable to present selection and not as per circular issued on 11.5.2011 as it is much subsequent to the advertisement and not given retrospective effect. 2. The circular dated 11.5.2011 provides for migration of reserved category candidates to open/general category in the case where the candidates have taken special concession. The aforesaid circular needs to be given proper interpretation. It would be applicable in the case where reserve category candidates have taken benefit of concession of fee and relaxation in age. In those cases, one would be allowed to migrate to open/general category if obtained equal or more marks to the last candidate in open/general category. In case of any other concession or relaxation during the process of selection by reserve category candidates, he would not be allowed to migrate to open/general category as the `level playing field' during the course of selection does not remain the same. Thus, respondents are directed to implement circular dated 11.5.2011 in the light of the directions given above but it would not be applicable to this selection as indicated in the first para of directions." • Initially a bunch of writ petitions filed by such of candidates having appeared in process of selection pursuant to advertisement dt. 14.10.2010 came to be decided by learned Single Judge vide judgment dt. 27.4.2012 and while 2nd bunch of writ petitions came as alleged on the same issue under consideration regarding the effect of later circular dt. 11.5.2011 of the State Govt. 14.10.2010 came to be decided by learned Single Judge vide judgment dt. 27.4.2012 and while 2nd bunch of writ petitions came as alleged on the same issue under consideration regarding the effect of later circular dt. 11.5.2011 of the State Govt. in reference to the process of selection initiated by RPSC for the post of Sub Inspector of Police/Platoon Commandant pursuant to advertisement dt. 25.11.2010 and that came to be disposed of in the light of earlier judgment dt. 27.4.2012, vide judgment dt. 8.11.2013. 17. Counsel for the appellants vehemently contend that once legal position stood settled by this Court regarding such of candidates who availed of relaxation in age or special concession and if such candidates (SC/ST/OBC/SBC) having secured higher marks than last cut off marks of general/open category candidates, they are eligible to be migrated against open/general category seats & circular dt. 11.5.2011 is merely a clarification for proper & effective implementation of the policy decision of the Government. It was further contended that State Government & its authorities are under obligation to comply with the mandate of law and the judgment of Apex Court in K. Manjusree vs. State of Andh. Pra. (supra) has no application in the facts of instant case. 18. Counsel for appellant submits that as regards candidates though availed special relaxation/concession at the stage of participating in process of selection/competitive examination but finally found place in the select list, without compromising in maintenance of efficiency in administration or even if availed of relaxation at one stage, either in qualifying marks or in the standards of evaluation during process of selection but securing their place in general/open category seat, obviously based on their final merit upon having acquired marks above bench mark of open/general category, seats, and this being the law, principles have been considered by earlier judgment of this Court and also by Apex Court in Jitendra Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. (supra). 19. Counsel for appellants jointly contended that apart from the fact that judgment in K. Manjusree vs. State of Andh. Pra. 19. Counsel for appellants jointly contended that apart from the fact that judgment in K. Manjusree vs. State of Andh. Pra. has been referred to larger bench in Tej Prakash Pathak vs. Rajasthan High Court ( 2013 (4) SCC 540 ) where the issue came up for consideration was as to what will be the effect of changing rule of game after the game is played; atleast concession/relaxations provided to candidates of reserved category under the Scheme of Rules and as along as such relaxations are consistent with the maintenance of efficiency in administration or its validity being assailed, members of reserved category are deemed to be migrated against general/open category provided they secure bench mark of open/general category, which was never the case before learned Single Judge, such of candidates having availed of special concessions/relaxation are entitled to migrate against seats of general/open category and it was finally submitted that impugned judgment of learned Single Judge being not sustainable in law deserves to be quashed. • 20. However, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State & RPSC while supporting the contentions raised by the present appellants, assertively submit that circular dt. 11.5.2011 issued by the State Government is nothing but a clarification made known to the recruiting agencies for their guidance indicating policy decision in filing vacancies of open/general category, concomitantly vacancies reserved of respective categories and the vacancies are to be filled in terms of circular dt. 11.5.2011 as pleaded in their reply but at the time of oral submission, Counsel for the State/RPSC has made a candid statement that circular dt. 11.5.2011 has not been acted upon in regard to both the advertisements in question, but the pleadings do not support his oral submission. 21. However, Counsel for contesting respondents (writ petitioners) while supporting order of learned Single Judge submit that admittedly Circular dt. 11.5.2011 issued much after the process of selection was initiated for the post of Constable/Sub Inspector of Police and what is being indicated by State Government in its Circular dt. 11.5.2011 changes the selection criteria & that being not permissible under the law, rules of game cannot be changed after the process being initiated, as has been settled by Apex Court in K. Manjusree vs. State of Andh. Pra. and merely because the view expressed in K. Manjusree's case (supra) has been referred to a larger Bench vide order dt. 11.5.2011 changes the selection criteria & that being not permissible under the law, rules of game cannot be changed after the process being initiated, as has been settled by Apex Court in K. Manjusree vs. State of Andh. Pra. and merely because the view expressed in K. Manjusree's case (supra) has been referred to a larger Bench vide order dt. 20.3.2013 in Tej Prakash Pathak vs. Rajasthan High Court (supra), that in no manner will dilute the effect of the judgment and is still binding under Art. 141 of the Constitution of India unless revisited by Apex Court in a Reference made to the larger Bench. 22. Counsel for contesting respondents (writ petitioners) jointly further submitted that no distinction can be made either in regard to relaxation/ concession which the incumbent availed either of age or of any other kind of special relaxation/concession during process of selection and one thing being common that the incumbent of reserved category could make himself eligible for participation in process of selection after availing of relaxation/concession as provided under Rules, 1989 and that certainly changes level playing field among candidates who have participated in process of selection. This what the learned Single Judge essentially held and arrived to the conclusion that candidates while availing to the conclusion that candidates while availing of relaxation/concession make themselves eligible to participate or compete in process of selection and if finally find place in the process of selection and if finally find place in the select list of general/open category vacancy, yet could not be migrated against open/general category vacancies and have to occupy the seats in their respective reserved category. 23. Counsel for contesting respondents herein also submit that as regards process of selection initiated for the post of Constable, Circular (Standing Order No. 05/2010) dt. 7.10.2010 came to be issued by Director General of Police, in super-session of earlier Standing Order No. 1/2005 and it was further notified that circular was effective for recruitment from the year 2009-10 onwards and it clearly postulates as referred to in Part IV in Para 14 of Circular dt. 7.10.2010 came to be issued by Director General of Police, in super-session of earlier Standing Order No. 1/2005 and it was further notified that circular was effective for recruitment from the year 2009-10 onwards and it clearly postulates as referred to in Part IV in Para 14 of Circular dt. 7.10.2010 that such of candidates seeking no relaxation in the standards of eligibility in terms of age, physical fitness or marks secured in written test or aggregate and selected on the dint of merit b considered against general category vacancies; this what the respective authorities had to follow while the final select list is to be operated for the post of Constable in terms of advertisement dt. 14.10.2010. • 24. Counsel further submit that as regards process of selection for the post of Sub-Inspector or Police pursuant to advertisement dt. 25.11.2010, circular issued by State Govt. providing general provisions in regard to reservation in Government service dt. 24.6.2008 was in vogue and it was provided that members of SC/ST/OBC can compete against unreserved category vacancies if having not availed of any relaxation like age etc. as provided in the Scheme of service Rules other than relating to concession of examination fee; and the Government was under obligation to prepare select list and identify candidates who are to be finally appointed against vacancies of general/open category or reserved category in terms of Circular dt. 24.6.2008; and even prior thereto, circular dt. 17.6.1996 or 4.3.2002 are consistent on the issue that candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC, upon having availed of special concessions including relaxation in age, if secure bench mark of general/open category candidates, are not open to migrate and will occupy their reserved seats and the impugned circular being later change in decision after the process of selection being initiated, State Government was not justified in implementing its later directions dt. 11.5.2011 for the instant selection and rules of game cannot be changed after the process being initiated; this what the learned Single Judge finally observed in its judgment impugned herein in instant bunch of special appeals. 25. In support of their contentions, Counsel for contesting respondents further placed reliance upon decision of the Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Vikas Kr. 25. In support of their contentions, Counsel for contesting respondents further placed reliance upon decision of the Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Vikas Kr. Agarwal (Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1484/2012 decided on 2.7.2013) and submit that the question having been raised was examined by Division Bench and the Court upheld the view that rules of game cannot be changed after the game being played and what being raised by appellants herein for consideration is not open to be examined in instant bunch of special appeals, in the light of judgment of Apex Court in K. Manjushree's case (supra). 26. This Court has considered rival contentions advanced by Counsel for respective parties and with their assistance, examination material on record. Rival contentions advanced at the bar give rise to the core issue viz. what is the extent of selection of a reserved category candidates qua unreserved seats and in what circumstances, candidate can be considered to migrate against unreserved vacancies besides reserved seats. 27. About 63 years ago, upon rejoicing independence attained after centuries, the India got a written constitution with an objective of securing justice, liberty, equality and fraternity to its citizens. To attain such a goal, methodology was resolved in detailed provisions enshrined in the Constitution by its inclusion in Parts-III & IV. Right of equality enshrined in Art. 14 of the Constitution speaks of equality before the law as well as equal protection of the laws. Concept of equality before the law stipulates reduction of inequalities n status, facilities opportunities and income etc. not only among individuals but also group of individuals and to the citizens. It also extends to secure adequate means of livelihood to its citizens, promote educational and economic interests of weaker sections of the people, protection from social injustice and all kinds of exploitation. Arts. 15 to 18 and certain Articles of Part IV like Arts. 38, 39A, 41 & 46 of the Constitution illustrate concept of equality before the law. Art. 15 (1) while declaring in positive terms that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them; at the same time with a view to ameliorate the conditions of women and children makes provision under Cl. Art. 15 (1) while declaring in positive terms that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them; at the same time with a view to ameliorate the conditions of women and children makes provision under Cl. (3) that nothing in the said Article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children. Similarly, Cl. (4) of Art. 15 provides that such an Article shall not prevent the State from making any special provision for advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 28. It is trite that public employment candidly gives certain status & power, may be due to experience we had in the pre-independence century, but it is a fact that public employment is always treated to be a repository of State power besides the means of livelihood. This was realized by framers of the Constitution as is depicted from the fact that a separate provision in Art. 16 was made ensuring equal opportunity in the public employment and Cl. (1) of Art. 16 in positive terms enshrines equal opportunity for all citizens in employment or appointment to any office under State. Concomitantly, Clause (4) stipulates that nothing in this Article 16 shall prevent the State from making any provisions for reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens, which in the opinion of State is not adequately represented. Similarly, Clause 16 (4A) inserted by 77 Amendment w.e.f. 17.6.1995 further provides that nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservations in promotion with consequential seniority to any class or classes of posts in the service under the State in favour of SC/ST, which in the opinion of the State are not adequately represented. Whereas Article 335 restricts reservation with the caution that it should not adversely affect efficiency in administration in making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State. Whereas Article 335 restricts reservation with the caution that it should not adversely affect efficiency in administration in making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State. However, a proviso was made by 86th Amendment that it will not prevent in making of any provision in favour of the members of SC/ST for relaxation in qualifying marks in any examination or lowering the standards of evaluation, for reservation in promotion to any class or classes of services or posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State. 29. However, what finally emerges from the amendment in the Constitution is that as regards members of SC/ST rather consideration of maintenance in efficiency of administration and relaxation to the extent of standards of evaluation, it may not in any manner impair maintenance of efficiency in the administration and it is settled that though the State can extend concessions and relaxations to the members of reserved categories; and while there is a minimum standard/bench mark for general candidates, though permissible to lower/relax the standards for members of SC/ST candidates, but consistent with the requirement of efficiency in administration in matters of appointment/promotion to any class or classes of services or posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State, and that being permissible by the mandate of law. • 30. It is well settled that efficiency in administration is held to be a constitutional limitation on the discretion vested in the State to provide reservation in public employment and efficiency is always a variable factor. It is for the State to decide in a given case whether over-all efficiency of the system is affected by such relaxation. But if the relaxation is so excessive that it ceases or in any manner impairs efficiency in administration, that is always within realm of judicial review. 31. This Court need not dwell much about policy of reservations. Relaxation/concessions are provided under the Scheme of service Rules and under provisions of the Constitution as in the case of appointment to the posts of Constable & Sub Inspector of Police under Rules, 1989, a number of relaxation/concessions at various stages have been provided by Rule making authority providing public employment and being permissible under the law. 32. Relaxation/concessions are provided under the Scheme of service Rules and under provisions of the Constitution as in the case of appointment to the posts of Constable & Sub Inspector of Police under Rules, 1989, a number of relaxation/concessions at various stages have been provided by Rule making authority providing public employment and being permissible under the law. 32. On a bare look to the Scheme of Rules, 1989 it envisages that while different age structure is provided for recruitment in service for the candidates belonging to open/general category, Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes or other reserved category, even distinct provisions as regards examination fees are contemplated, but after the candidate falls within zone of consideration and participate in process of selection/competitive examination, certain special relaxation/concessions are being provided either in qualifying examination written test, physique & medical fitness test, aptitude test and interview, etc. 33. Such relaxation provided in age at the initial stage only enables candidates to fall within zone of consideration for participation in process of selection and indisputably did not in any manner tilt the balance in favour of reserved category candidate as his selection is based on evaluation in process of selection contemplated under scheme of Rules, 1989. 34. It has been noticed that learned Single Judge of this Court has an occasion to examine as to whether candidates who availed relaxation in age and appeared in competitive examination and on the dint of merit, finally find place in select list of open/general category vacancy upon having secured the bench mark could still be treated to have been selected in the reserved category or could be migrated to open/general category vacancies. 35. Such a controversy came to be examined by learned Single Judge of this Court in Chandra Bhan Yadav vs. State of Rajasthan (2009(2) WLC (Raj.) 454) and it has been observed ad infra: "The law on the question is well settled that a candidate, though belonging to a reserved category, if has secured a place in the merit of the general category, the seat/post consumed by him would be counted against the general category. The Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney in para 811 of the judgment observed as under: "811. In this connection it is well to remember that the reservations under Articles 16(4) do not operate like a communal reservation. The Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney in para 811 of the judgment observed as under: "811. In this connection it is well to remember that the reservations under Articles 16(4) do not operate like a communal reservation. It may well happen that some members belonging to say, Scheduled Castes get selected in the open competition field on the basis of their own merits they will not be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes; they will be treated as open competition candidates." "10. Fallacy of this argument would get exposed on deeper analysis. Significant question which in the facts and circumstances of the present case has arisen is whether the candidate who secured the age relaxation and thereby acquired the eligibility to appear in the competitive examination, can be, in the face of the settled proposition of law referred to in the preceding paras, treated to have been selected in reserved category and not in the open/general category in spite of the fact that he has secured more marks than the last candidate selected n the open/general category. The respondent RPSC has proceeded on the assumption that since these candidates availed of the benefit of age relaxation and it is only because of such age relaxation that they have become eligible to appear in the competitive examinations, they cannot be treated to have been selected in open/general category. In other words, what they contend s that if such 13 candidates were not granted age relaxation, they could not appear in the competitive examination, and there was thus no question of their being selected in the open/general category. All the aforesaid judgments starting from Indra Sawhney onwards, refers to the merit position of such candidates and therefore what is to be seen is whether relaxation in age can be treated as enabling such candidates to qualify the competitive examination on relaxed standards of merit. But then, age and for that matter, the relaxation in the upper age limit, does not have anything to do with the merit of a candidate. While a younger candidates may acquire a much higher position in the merit, an elder candidate need not necessarily figure so high in the merit. But then, age and for that matter, the relaxation in the upper age limit, does not have anything to do with the merit of a candidate. While a younger candidates may acquire a much higher position in the merit, an elder candidate need not necessarily figure so high in the merit. It is the younger once who often steal a march over the elders when it comes to achieving merit position in a competitive examination Age has thus got no co-relation with the merit of a given candidate. While age is essential component of eligibility of the candidate enabling him to appear for the competitive examination as per the rules, merit is the standard by which the efficiency level of such candidate is judged vis-a-vis other candidates appearing in the same competitive examination. Age therefore cannot be confused with the merit of a candidate." The view expressed in afore cited decision was that such relaxation in age provided at initial stage enabling the candidates to fall within zone of consideration for participation in process of selection and indisputably, it did not tilt the balance in favour of reserved category candidate since the selection is based on evaluation made in process of selection as contemplated under the Scheme of service Rules. It has been brought to our notice that Special Appeal No. 92/2009 filed by RPSC against judgment of learned Single Judge came to be dismissed by Division Bench vide judgment dt. 21.12.2010. 36. In Jitendra Kumar Singh vs. State of UP ( 2010(3) SCC 119 ) Apex Court observed in para 75 ad infra: "75. In our opinion, 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 Articles 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 fulfill the eligibility conditions namely qualifications age, preliminary written test and physical test are permitted to sit in the main written examination. 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 fulfill 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." 37. Controversy still has not been put to rest and the question arose before the learned Single Judge of this Court as to what will be the scope of R. 11 of Rules, 1989, where the candidates of reserved category availed relaxation in age and after falling within zone of consideration, on the dint of merit found place in select list against open/general category vacancy, whether such a candidate will be deemed to migrate against vacancies of open/general or reserved category under the law or not. 38. Taking note of earlier judgment of learned Single Judge in Chandra Bhan Yadav vs. State of Rajasthan (2009(2) WLC (Raj.) 454) and that of Apex Court in Jitendra Kumar Singh vs. State of UP ( 2010 (3) SCC 119 ), learned Single Judge in Mangla Ram Bishnoi vs. State of Rajasthan (2011 (1) WLC (Raj.) p. 148) further endorsed that relaxation in age to the reserved category candidate in no manner can be treated to be "relaxed standard of merits"; and such relaxation in age merely enables the candidate to fall within zone of consideration for participation in process of selection in open competition on merit. Later judgment in Mangla Ram Bishnoi vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) was pronounced on 30.6.2010 and by Judge made law, it was made clear that as regards the candidates who have availed relaxation in age, such relaxation could not be considered to be relaxation in the standards of merit evaluation and after participation in process of selection on dint of merit, if finally secure bench mark of last candidate in select list of general/open category vacancy, they are deemed to be migrated against general/open category seats. But it appears from the record that State Government failed to clarify either by Circular or otherwise in the respective advertisements which indisputably were notified much after the judgments of this Court (supra) and this Court can take judicial notice that after the legal position being settled, the State & its functionaries were under obligation to comply with the law laid down by this Court and such of candidates who have ether availed relaxation in age or concession in fee which enabled them to fall within zone of consideration for participation in open competition while preparation of final merit or secured bench mark prescribed for open/general category candidates, they are deemed to be migrated to the general/open category seats. • 39. Circulars issued from time to time reference whereof has been made herein (supra) laying down the guidelines regarding vacancies of reserved category belonging to members of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes/Other Backward Castes are to be filled in for direct recruitment to the posts in the services of State Government. Circulars dt. 17.6.1996, followed by 4.3.2002, 24.6.2008 & 11.5.2011 were nothing more than guidelines to be followed while filling the vacancies of direct recruitment and promotion in the service of Government. 40. At this stage, this Court would like to quote extract of relevant Circulars ad infra: Circular dt. 17.6.1996 "...The matter has again been examined in consultation with Law Department and the Law Department have advised that the quota of post for which citizen is eligible to compete in entirely different to reserve quota and for recruitment to the post falling in open competition quota, the condition of eligibility can be different to the conditions of eligibility for recruitment to the post of reserve quota. Therefore, the candidates belonging to SC/ST and OBC who get selected fulfilling the conditions of eligibility regarding age limit and attempts prescribed for general candidates can be placed on general merit list and those who get placement in the merit list as a result of special concession given to them in terms of age and attempts should not be considered as the general candidates but should be considered against reserve vacancies." Circular dt. 4.3.2002 (a) If a candidate belonging to OBC/SC/ST has not availed of any of the special concessions which are available to the candidates belonging to these categories except the concession of fees, and he secures more marks than the marks obtained by the last general category candidate who is selected, such a candidate belonging to OBC/SC/ST shall be counted against the general category vacancies and not the vacancies reserved for the OBC/SC/ST, as the case may be. (b) If any SC/ST candidate gets selected against the general category vacancies on the basis of his merit without availing of any of the special concession which are available to the candidates belonging to these categories, except the concession of fees, such a SC/ST candidate will be treated as a SC/ST candidate, as the case may be, for all further services matters including further promotions, and all the benefits which are admissible to the other SC/ST persons under the various service rules/Government instructions shall be admissible to them. (c) If OBC/SC/ST category Candidates who gets selected against general category vacancies on the basis of merit will not be counted against the posts reserved for these categories when it comes to the question of determining the total number of posts occupied by the candidates of these categories in that particular post/cadre." Circular dt. 24.6.2008 "6.2 In the state, members of the SC/ST/OBC can compete against non-reserved vacancies and be counted against them, in case they have not taken any concession (like that of age, etc) available to them other than that relating to payment of examination fee in case of direct recruitment. On the other hand, women, persons with disabilities, sports persons, in-servicemen or non-gazetted employees and ex servicemen are counted against their respective category, even if they are suitable for selection against non-reserved or open competition vacancy/post. On the other hand, women, persons with disabilities, sports persons, in-servicemen or non-gazetted employees and ex servicemen are counted against their respective category, even if they are suitable for selection against non-reserved or open competition vacancy/post. But it may be noted that if any remaining candidate of these categories after providing the vacancies/posts reserved for them are more meritorious than the last person of the open competition category, such candidates will be selected even if it leads to selection of more candidates than that provided by virtue of reservation. This is to say that there is no reservation in favour of the non reserved categories like the males or the non sports persons. To take an example, assume that 1000 candidates are to be selected. Also assume that there is reservation for SC/ST/OBC categories...." "20 Preparation of merit list in direct recruitment. 20. I we now come to the question of how to select candidates so that all the categories get the number of posts reserved for them. Separate lists of candidates in the order of their merit should be made for each category for which there is reservation-SC,ST, OBC, OC women, SC women, ST women, OBC women, women, PD, ES, NG and SP - as well a common list. In the first round, first of all, the OC category candidates should be selected from the common list. As many OC category candidates as are the number of vacancies in the OC category should be selected. Any member of the SC/ST/OBC category, appearing in this list should be counted towards OC category unless he has taken some concession admissible to these categories other than concession in fees. Thereafter, list of SC,ST and OBC candidates should be prepared from the remaining candidates in the lists of SC, ST and OBC categories respectively." Circular dt. Any member of the SC/ST/OBC category, appearing in this list should be counted towards OC category unless he has taken some concession admissible to these categories other than concession in fees. Thereafter, list of SC,ST and OBC candidates should be prepared from the remaining candidates in the lists of SC, ST and OBC categories respectively." Circular dt. 11.5.2011 "In super-session of this department circular of even number dated 4.3.2002 on the above-mentioned subject, the matter has been examined in consultation with Law Department, the following clarifications are hereby issued for the guidance of all Appointing Authorities:- (a) If a candidate belonging to BC/SBC/SC/ST irrespective of whether he has availed of or not any of the special concessions which are available to the candidate belonging to these categories and he secures more marks than the marks obtained by the last unreserved category candidate who is selected, such a candidate belonging to BC/SBC/SC/ST shall be counted against the unreserved category vacancies and not the vacancies reserved for the BC/SBC/SC/ST, as the case may be. (b) If any SC/ST candidates gets selected against the unreserved category vacancies on the basis of merit with or without availing of any of the special concessions which are available to the candidates belonging to these categories, such a SC/ST candidate will be treated as a SC/ST candidate for all further services matters including further promotions. (c) If a BC/SBC/SC/ST category candidates who gets selected against unreserved category vacancy on the basis of merit will not be counted against the vacancy reserved for these categories when it comes to the question of determining the total number of vacancies occupied by the candidates of these categories in that particular post/cadre." 41. As regards procedure for recruitment to the post of Constable, Director General of Police issued Standing Order No. 05/2010 dt. 7.10.2010- Clause 12 whereof provides that after written examination reserve category candidate can migrate to open category, if obtained higher or equivalent marks to cut off marks for open category-relevant extract/paras whereof for the purpose/due appreciation of the controversy are quoted ad infra- "In suppression of Standing Order No. 01/2008, amendments thereto and all related orders, following instructions are issued to regulate recruitment of Constable, Constable (operator), Constable (Driver), Constable (Band) and Constable (Mounted) in Sections-I, II, III and IV of Rule 4 RPSS Rules, 1989. These instructions shall be effective for recruitment for the year 2009-2010 onwards. These instructions shall be effective for recruitment for the year 2009-2010 onwards. 4. Relaxation in Age (a) Relaxation in age and standards of physical fitness shall be given as provided in Rules-II and 14. of RPSSR 1989 and as per Government notification dated 25.6.2004. (b) Women candidates shall be eligible for relaxation in the upper age limit of five year in case of General category and ten years in case of Other Backward Classes/SBC, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes categories as per Government of Rajasthan notification No. F 7(2) DOP/A-II/84/Part dated 22.11.2001. Male candidates of other Backward Classes/SBC shall be eligible for relaxation of five years in the upper age limit as per Government of Rajasthan notification No. P7(2) /DOP/A-II/93/Part dated 25.5.2000. Candidates belonging to State Government employee category and the Dependants of the deceased police officers/officials killed in the discharge of their duties shall be eligible for relaxation of three years, in the upper age limit as per Government of Rajasthan notification No. F7(2) DOP/A-II/84/Part dated 22.11.2001." "12. Procedure for selection:- Candidates applying for selection shall be required to go through the following selection process:- Part -I Written Test Including Reasoning Test- 75 Marks The written test for the recruitment of all categories of constables shall be for a total of 75 marks. An objective type written test will be held simultaneously throughout the State under the directions of Director, General -cum-Inspector of Police. It shall consist of three parts. Part A will have questions on reasoning and logic. Part B will include questions on general knowledge, general science and current affairs. Part C will have questions specifically on History, Geography, Culture and Arts of Rajasthan. There will be provision for negative marking for incorrect answers in written examination. Candidates shall be required to writ their roll numbers and other details on the answer sheet only in the manner prescribed. Failure to fill these details in the answer sheet correctly shall render the candidate liable to be declared unsuccessful. For the post of Constable (Band), there will be no written test. "Failure to secure 40% of marks each for General and OBC/SBC candidates 36% marks each for SC/ST Candidates and 30% marks each for Saharias and SC/ST candidates of Tribal Sub Plan area in each Part A, B and C separately shall render the candidate ineligible for the rest of the selection procedure. "Failure to secure 40% of marks each for General and OBC/SBC candidates 36% marks each for SC/ST Candidates and 30% marks each for Saharias and SC/ST candidates of Tribal Sub Plan area in each Part A, B and C separately shall render the candidate ineligible for the rest of the selection procedure. The marks obtained in both these parts will be taken into consideration for final selection. The answer sheet will be evaluated on computer under supervision of the officers nominated by Director General-cum-Inspector of Police. The results will be published in local dailies, on the Rajasthan Police website (www.rajpolice.nic.in) and also put up on notice boards in the offices of Superintendent of Police or Commandants or other Appointing Authorities concerned." Part II (A) HEEIGHT/CHEST MEASUREMENTS AND WEIGHT:- The candidates who qualify in the written test as mentioned in Part I above will be called for the height, chest and weight measurements. Height and chest (weight in case of female candidates) measurements of the candidates will be taken by the Board as per the norms laid down in the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989. Candidates failing to fulfill the prescribed standards of height/chest measurement or weight shall be rejected. (B) PHYSICAL EFFICIENCY TEST:- This test will be qualifying in nature. Candidates who are successful in physical efficiency test will be granted 15 marks (in case of constable general duty and operator) and 10 marks (in case of constable driver, band and mounted). After qualifying PET, candidates will be considered for award of marks for special qualifications (in case of constable general duty & constable operator) and for proficiency test (in case of constable band, constable driver & constable mounted). Marks obtained in the physical efficiency test shall be included for determining the merit of successful candidates. The candidates will undergo the physical efficiency test at their own risk. Any candidate failing in physical efficiency test will be disqualified. Physical measurements and physical efficiency test of ex-service personal shall be conducted separately, before such tests of other candidates. Details of marks and time allotted for Physical Efficiency Test shall be as under:- Post For Men For Women Ex-Service Personnel/Saharia and SOST candidates of T.S.P. Area Marks Item Time Item Time Item Time Constable (General Duty & Operator 10 Km. Run 60 minutes maximum 5 Km. run 35 minutes maximum 5 Km. Details of marks and time allotted for Physical Efficiency Test shall be as under:- Post For Men For Women Ex-Service Personnel/Saharia and SOST candidates of T.S.P. Area Marks Item Time Item Time Item Time Constable (General Duty & Operator 10 Km. Run 60 minutes maximum 5 Km. run 35 minutes maximum 5 Km. run 30 minutes maximum 15 Constable (Driver, Band & Mounted 10 Km. Run 60 minutes maximum 5 Km. run 35 minutes maximum 5 Km. run 30 minutes maximum 10 Only one chance shall be given for Physical Efficiency Test." • 42. Circulars issued by State Government from time to time, are nothing more than guidelines issued for being followed by recruiting agencies/competent authority while filling up the vacancies of direct recruitment/promotion in service of the Government. 43. In later circular of 2008, the State Government further made it clear that members of SC/ST/OBC can compete against non-reserved vacancies and be counted against them, in case they have not taken any concession (like that of age, etc.) available to them other than that relating to payment of examination fee in case of direct recruitment. 44. This consistency was followed by State Government in its standing order No. 5/2010 dt. 7.10.2010 followed for recruitment to the post of Constable notified vide advertisement dt. 25.11.2010. 45. The State Government through out from June, 1996 consistently in its later circulars issued in March, 2002, June, 2008, October, 2010 (Standing Order No. 5/2010) as per its policy decision directed that the candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC can compete against non-reserved vacancies and can be considered against such vacancies provided they have not availed special concessions (like age etc.) other than examination fees. 46. However, there was a deviation in its later circular dt. 11.5.2011 issued in the form of clarification laying down guidelines for the recruiting agency/authorities in super-session of its earlier circulars/directions and the State Government was of the view that candidates belonging to reserved category (BC/SBC/SC/ST) irrespective of having availed any of the special concessions (including of age) etc. which are available to the candidates belonging to the reserve categories, secure bench mark prescribed for general/open category candidates if selected, such a reserved category SC/ST/BC/SBC candidate shall be counted against unreserved/open category seats. • 47. which are available to the candidates belonging to the reserve categories, secure bench mark prescribed for general/open category candidates if selected, such a reserved category SC/ST/BC/SBC candidate shall be counted against unreserved/open category seats. • 47. It is to be noticed at this stage that as regards scheme of statutory Rules, 1989, that only provides the extent to which reservation is provided to the members of BC/SC/ST/SBC; but as regards allocation of seats available to such of reserved category candidates, the Rules are silent and to supplement, general guidelines as per Government policy are issued by the State Government regarding treatment to be given to the candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC/SBC who are selected against general category vacancy on the basis of merit from time to time; however, when such guidelines came up for judicial review by the Judge made law, it was held that such candidates belonging to reserved category who have availed relaxation in age and has participated in open competition with dint of merit, if find place in select list prepared for open/general category candidates, he is deemed to be migrated against open/unreserved category seat and the State government was under obligation to take note of the mandate of law laid down by this Court and the Circulars issued by the State Government from time to time to the extent (supra) in the light of judgment of this Court stands superseded; to which we are in full agreement that the relaxation in age provided under the Scheme of Rules merely brought the reserved category candidates to fall within zone of consideration enabling him to participate in competitive examination and once a candidate participated in open competition and by dint of merit without availing special relaxation/concessions in process of selection/competitive test if finds place in merit/select list of general/open category vacancies, we are of the view that such candidates of reserved category are deemed to be migrated against open/general category seats and it becomes immaterial as to which category, candidate belong if qualified in process of selection on dint of his merit. 48. 48. It also goes without saying that while candidates availed of relaxation in age, that only pertains to eligibility of a candidate to participate in the competitive test; however, process regarding competitive test does not commence at the stage when such concession or relaxation being availed and as regards merit of candidates, the sole touch stone of adjudging efficiency level is the competitive test. 49. The circulars issued by State Government from time to time took note of special concessions available under scheme of Rules to the incumbent of reserved category, and was consistent in its directives to respective State authorities and subordinate thereto that members of reserved category candidates (SC/ST/OBC) if availed any special concession can compete against reserved vacancies and such reserved category candidate shall be counted against unreserved vacancies if having not taken benefit of special concessions. 50. However, clarifications have been issued for guidance to all State authorities and subordinate thereto from time to time vide Circulars dt. 17.6.1996 & dt. 4.3.2002 and that stood superseded vide later circular dt. 24.6.2008, of which no reference was made by State Government in its subsequent circular dated 11.5.2011 directed all its authorities that candidates belonging to SC/ST/BC/SBC category irrespective of having availed special concessions which are available to them if secure bench mark of last unreserved category candidates who are selected, such candidates belonging to reserved category shall be counted against unreserved category vacancies and not the vacancies reserved category candidates (BC/SBC/SC/ST). • 51. In reference to other special concessions (other than of age), the learned Single Judge was of the view that if special concessions are availed by candidates of reserved category while participating in process of selection/competitive test like written test, medical fitness test, physique test, aptitude test & interview, that changes the level playing field of candidates and such of reserved category candidates who have availed special concessions, if find place in final merit/select list of open/general category seats, are not eligible for being migrated against vacancies reserved for open/general category candidates. 52. We do find substance that scheme of Rules 1989 provides certain special concessions to members of reserved category at different levels (written test, physique test, medical fitness test, aptitude test & interview etc.) which may be consistent in maintenance of efficiency in administration and permissible to the extent as provided under the scheme of Rules. 52. We do find substance that scheme of Rules 1989 provides certain special concessions to members of reserved category at different levels (written test, physique test, medical fitness test, aptitude test & interview etc.) which may be consistent in maintenance of efficiency in administration and permissible to the extent as provided under the scheme of Rules. In our view, this contingency ordinarily may not arise for the reason that if a member of reserve category failed to maintain/hold bench mark notified/prescribed for general/open category candidates, his final selection subject to just exception may not fall against general/open category vacancy but in a given situation where scheme of Rules provides special relaxation/concessions at different levels to the reserve category candidates, in our considered view, such special concession/relaxation if availed by candidate of reserved category while participating in competitive examination/process of selection and finds place in select list upon over all evaluation having crossed bench mark of open/general category candidates, that certainly changes the level playing field of the candidates while participating in competitive test/process of selection, such reserved category candidates are not eligible for being migrated against general/open category vacancy and this what the learned Single Judge also observed in the impugned judgment and we are in agreement with the view expressed. 53. As regards relaxation in age, under the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge further proceeded to hold that the impugned Circular came to be issued by State Government on 11.5.2011 after the recruitment process being initiated in reference to advertisements in question and it was concluded that the Rules of game cannot be changed after the game was over or process of selection having commenced. Placing reliance upon decision of Apex Court in K. Manjusree vs. State of Andh. Pra. ( 2008(3) SCC 512 ), learned Single Judge observed that it may not apply to the present process of selection as referred to in para 1 of the relief granted to the writ petitioners. 54. The consistent view of this Court as regards relaxation in age if availed by reserve category candidates and finally selected on the dint of merit in competitive examination and find place in merit/select list of open/general category candidates, such candidate deserves to be migrated against general/open category seats. 54. The consistent view of this Court as regards relaxation in age if availed by reserve category candidates and finally selected on the dint of merit in competitive examination and find place in merit/select list of open/general category candidates, such candidate deserves to be migrated against general/open category seats. The law laid down by this Court being consistent and in our considered view, this fact was completely over-looked by learned Single Judge that once there was a consistent view of this Court duly supported by thee principles laid down by Apex Court in Jitendra Kumar Singh vs. State of UP (supra), the State Government & its functionaries were under obligation to comply with the mandate of law in the processes of selection having been initiated thereafter; and that apart, the principles laid down by Apex Court in K. Manjushree vs. State of Andh. Pra. (supra)- reliance whereof has been placed by learned Single Judge, apart from it being referred to a larger bench by Apex Court in Tej P. Pathak vs. raj. High Court ( 2013(4) SCC 540 ), in our considered view, may not have any application to the facts of instant case. 55. That apart, we would like to observe that K. Manjushree vs. State of Andh. Pra. (supra) was a case where the Full Court revised select list prescribing minimum marks for interview after completion of the selection process and name of K. Manjushree find place in first list, more particularly when there was no provision either under the Rules or resolution of administrative committee, and in this fact situation, it was considered amounting to change of Rules of game not only after the game started but after the game was placed. 56. In various other cases cited before us by respective parties, viz. State of Haryana vs. Subhash Chander Marwaha ( 1974 (3) SCC 220 ), P. Mahendran vs. State of Karn. ( 1990(1) SCC 411 ), Yogesh Yadav vs. Union of India (2013(10) Scale 333), Parmender Kumar vs. State of Haryana ( 2012(1) SCC 177 ), they deal with the situation where the State sought to alter (1) eligibility criteria of the candidates seeking employment or (2) altering method and manner of selection of suitable candidates. ( 1990(1) SCC 411 ), Yogesh Yadav vs. Union of India (2013(10) Scale 333), Parmender Kumar vs. State of Haryana ( 2012(1) SCC 177 ), they deal with the situation where the State sought to alter (1) eligibility criteria of the candidates seeking employment or (2) altering method and manner of selection of suitable candidates. The latter could be termed as the procedure adopted for selection, such as prescribing minimum cut-off marks to be secured by the candidates either in written examination or viva voce as was done in K. Manjusree (supra). 57. In the instant case, State Government in super-session of its earlier policy decision regarding treatment to be given to the candidates belonging to reserve category who are selected against unreserved category vacancies, issued directives for guidance to the appointing authorities vide Circular dt. 11.5.2011 that neither changed the eligibility criteria seeking employment nor manner & method of selection of suitable candidates and in our considered view, circular dt. 11.5.2011 did not change Rules of the game after the game is played or process of selection is initiated as observed by the learned Single Judge but such policy decisions are always within realm of judicial review and this what the Court considered & examined policy decision of the Government impugned. • 58. As regards submission made by Counsel for contesting respondents that Division Bench of this Court in Vikas Agrawal's case (supra) has an occasion to examine the effect of circular issued after the process of selection being initiated pursuant to advertisements in question and indisputably in the instant case, Circular dt. 11.5.2011 was issued after initiation of process of selection; may not be open for this Court to examine, such submission is bereft of merit for the reason that Division Bench in Vikas Agrawal's case (supra) was examining the issue as to what will be the effect of concessions granted vide notification dt. 23.8.2010 to reserve category candidates in view of the guidelines issued by the NCTE vide notification dt. 29.7.2011 and how far, it was in conformity with the guidelines of NCTE. 59. As regards the effect of changing rules of the game after the game s played, it has been noticed in para 74 of judgment in Vikas Agrawal's case (supra). The Division Bench was examining norms laid down for admission made in reference to circular dt. 29.7.2011 and how far, it was in conformity with the guidelines of NCTE. 59. As regards the effect of changing rules of the game after the game s played, it has been noticed in para 74 of judgment in Vikas Agrawal's case (supra). The Division Bench was examining norms laid down for admission made in reference to circular dt. 11.5.2011 but this not the question before the Division Bench in the case of Vikas Agrawal for consideration, as to what will be the effect in such of cases where the relaxation in age, beside special concession being availed by member of reserve category candidate and open for migration against open/general category seats, may not be of any assistance. It has been informed that petition for Special leave to appeal (Civil) Nos. 23178-23182/2013 were preferred against thee judgment dt. 2.7.2013 of DB in Vikash Agrawal's case (DBCSA No. 1470/2012 & Other cognate case) wherein the parties were directed to maintain status quo vide order dt. 12.11.2013. 60. Upshot of over-all discussions made (supra), all the special appeals (Schedule A) are disposed of and we modify the impugned judgment dt. 27.4.2012 and 8.11.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent of relaxation in age having been availed by candidates of reserved category and find place in the select list on dint of merit of general/open category vacancies, deserves to be migrated against general/open category vacancies; but at the same time, candidates availing special relaxation/concessions while participating in competitive test/process of selection, if find place in select/merit list of general/open category vacancies, they are not eligible to be migrated against open/general category vacancies and shall occupy the reserved seat in their respective category; as a result whereof, para (a) of the Circular issued by State Government dt. 11.5.2011 being not in confirmity with the mandate of law can not be made applicable for public employment & accordingly deserves to be quashed & set aside. 61. The State Government is directed to finalize the select/merit list prepared of respective categories in reference to the advertisements dt. 14.10.2010 & 25.11.2010 in question for the posts of Constable. Sub Inspector of Police/Platoon Commandant and make appointments in furtherance thereto in terms of directions of this Court. Stay Petitions along with misc. applications filed in these special appeals stand disposed of. No. costs.