JUDGMENT : D.N. Patel, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the order passed in Interlocutory Application no. 3584 of 2015 in writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 1524 of 2015. The said order is dated 22nd July, 2015 whereby the interim application preferred by these appellants for getting stay against the declaration of the result of 5th Jharkhand Public Cervice Commission (Main) examination, has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioners. 2. Counsel for the appellants submitted that Preliminary Test for 5th Jharkhand Public Service Commission as well as the Main examination of 5th Jharkhand Public Service Commission have already been held and there is reservation in the Main examination whereas, no reservation has been given by the respondents in Preliminary Test and, therefore, these appellants are seeking direction upon the respondent-State in the main writ petition. It is submitted by counsel for the appellants that the reservation in the Main examination will not be useful at all if no such reservation will be given in Preliminary Test. Jharkhand Public Service Commission can not work against the reservation policy of the State of Jharkhand. Counsel for the appellants is relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2003)11 SCC 559 . Similarly, the counsel for the appellants is also relying upon the decision of Allahabad High Court by which the reservation given in the Preliminary Test was quashed and the said order has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Similarly there was a reservation in the Preliminary Test in the State of Bihar which was quashed and set aside by the learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court and the said order has been stayed by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court. On the basis of these decisions it is submitted by counsel for the appellants that let the result of 5th Jharkhand Public Service Commission (Main) examination be not declared otherwise the very purpose of filing of the writ petition will be frustrated. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the interlocutory application preferred by these appellants bearing Interlocutory Application No. 3548 of 2015 in W.P.(S) No. 1524 of 2015. 3. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the interlocutory application preferred by these appellants bearing Interlocutory Application No. 3548 of 2015 in W.P.(S) No. 1524 of 2015. 3. Counsel appearing for the State submitted that no direction may be given to the State for drafting a policy of reservation for Preliminary Test. State of Jharkhand has not enacted or floated any such policy of reservation even for preliminary test. It is further submitted by counsel for the State that what should be the reservation policy that is left at the discretion of the State of Jharkhand. There is already a reservation policy which is applicable in the main examination. This Court may not even replace a better policy than the existing one while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The wisdom of the policy cannot be challenged in the court of law. This Court can only check whether the policy is violative of the constitutional provision or not ? It is further submitted that as per decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2009)5 SCC 1 a reservation policy is not applicable in the Preliminary Test which is in fact, scrutiny examination. The marks of the Preliminary Test are not to be calculated for arranging the merit of the successful candidates, in a seriatim number. The very purpose of the preliminary test is that when large number of candidates are applying for the posts which are advertised, it is practically not possible to take written test of all these candidates and therefore, scrutiny examination is held by Jharkhand Public Service Commission. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the interlocutory application filed by these appellants. Even otherwise also the writ petition is already pending before the learned Single Judge and is also listed for its final hearing and, therefore, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court. 4. Learned counsel for Jharkhand Public Service Commission has adopted the arguments canvassed by counsel for the State of Jharkhand. It is however submitted that the reservation policy is not applicable in the Preliminary Test and in fact there is no such reservation policy evolved by the State of Jharkhand. 4. Learned counsel for Jharkhand Public Service Commission has adopted the arguments canvassed by counsel for the State of Jharkhand. It is however submitted that the reservation policy is not applicable in the Preliminary Test and in fact there is no such reservation policy evolved by the State of Jharkhand. It is further submitted by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission that the result of the Preliminary Test has already been declared in the year 2014 and now Main examination has also been conducted in the month of May, 2015. In the main examination the reservation policy will be applicable. At which stage the reservation policy is to be applied that is also a policy decision, therefore, High Court will not replace the said policy decision of the State of Jharkhand. Learned counsel for Jharkhand Public Service Commission further submitted that these appellants have appeared in the Preliminary Test and they have not been successful and once these appellants have accepted all the terms and conditions which are mentioned in the advertisement and appeared in the examination and as they have remained unsuccessful they can not challenge the terms and conditions of the advertisement nor can they challenge the policy of the reservation, especially after participating into the examination. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the interlocutory application preferred by these appellants and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court. REASONS: 5. Having heard counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal mainly for the following facts and reasons: i) These appellants have preferred application in pursuance of public advertisement given by Jharkhand Public Service Commission bearing advertisement no. 6 of 2013 published in newspaper in the month of July, 2013. Thereafter, preliminary test was conducted in the year 2014 in which these appellants appeared and they remained unsuccessful. ii) Looking to the said public advertisement which is at Annexure 1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal, marks of the Preliminary Test are not to be calculated at all for deciding the merits of the candidates. The Preliminary Test is only scrutiny examination which is normally being conducted when the applications are many more and the vacancies are much lessor. The Preliminary Test is only scrutiny examination which is normally being conducted when the applications are many more and the vacancies are much lessor. iii) It further appears from the facts of the case that it is a policy decision taken by the State of Jharkhand that a reservation policy as stated in the public advertisement (Annexure 1) shall be applicable only in the main examination and not in the preliminary test. The appellants are seeking such type of direction that State should also evolve a policy-reservation which is also applicable in preliminary test. We are not in agreement with this argument mainly for the following reasons: a) That Court cannot replace a better policy than existing one. b) At which stage of the examinations i.e. either in the preliminary test or in the main examination, the reservation policy is to be applied that itself is a policy decision. The Court will be extremely slow in interfering with the policy decision of the State of Jharkhand. c) While exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Court can check whether policy decision of the government is violative of the constitution or not ? But, the clauses of the policy decision cannot be altered by this Court. d) Policy decision is a very complex phenomena. The State Government is a best institution which can formulate their own policies looking to their own priority. This Court is not inclined to change this policy in the facts of the present case nor this Court is inclined to suggest any other policy than the existing one. Court may not have sometime expertise knowledge. Formulation of the policy depends upon several factors. Supersession of the earlier policy is also a prerogative function of the State which is in fact the power of the State. Once, there is a power vested with the State to evolve a policy there is no corresponding right vested with the public at large, much less, with these appellants. Once there is no right vested with the public at large there is no public duty vested with the State of Jharkhand and once there is no public duty vested with the State of Jharkhand no writ of mandamus can be issued upon State neither for drafting a new policy nor to alter the policy or to amend the policy. 6. 6. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Baloji Badhavath and others reported in (2009) 5 SCC 1 wherein at paragraph Nos. 26,29,31,32 and 40 it has been held that: “26. We may notice that in Chattar Singh V. State of Rajasthan, rule 13 of the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1962 prescribing the mode of conducting preliminary as also main examination had been interpreted, opining: (SCC p. 748, paras 14-16) “14. …. What requires to be done is that the Public Service Commission has to consider the number of vacancies notified or likely to be filled in the year of recruitment for which notification was published. Then candidates who had appeared for the preliminary examination and qualified for main examination are to be screened by the test. The object is to eliminate unduly long list of candidates so that opportunity to sit for main examination should be given to candidates numbering 15 times the notified posts/vacancies in various services; in other words for every one post/vacancy there should be 15 candidates. There would be wider scope to get best of the talent by way of competition in the examination. The ultimate object is to get at least three candidates or as is prescribed, who may be called for viva voce. Therefore, the lowest range of aggregate marks as cutoff for general candidates should be so worked out as to get the required number of candidates including OBCs, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The lowest range would , therefore, be worked out in such a way that candidates numbering 15 times the notified posts/vacancies would be secured so as to afford an opportunity to the candidates to compete in the main examination. 15. Under the proviso, if that range has not been reached by the candidates belonging to the SCs or the STs, there may be 5% further cutoff from the last range worked out for the general candidates so as to declare them as qualified for appearing in the main examination. 15. Under the proviso, if that range has not been reached by the candidates belonging to the SCs or the STs, there may be 5% further cutoff from the last range worked out for the general candidates so as to declare them as qualified for appearing in the main examination. In other words, where candidates belonging to the SCs and STs numbering 15 times the total vacancies reserved for them are not available then the Service Commission has to go down further and cut off 5% of the marks from the lowest of the range prescribed for general candidates and then declare as eligible the SC and ST candidates who secured 5% less than the lowest range fixed by PSC for general candidates so as to enable them to appear for the main examination. The candidates who thus obtain qualifying marks are eligible to appear and write the main examination. The respective proportion of 1:3 or as may be prescribed and candidates who qualified in the main examination will be called by the Commission, in their discretion, for interview. The Commission shall award marks to each candidate interviewed by them, having regard to their character, personality, address, physique and knowledge of Rajasthani culture as is in vogue as per rules. However, for selection to the Rajasthan Police Service, candidates having 'C' Certificate of NCC will be given preference. The marks so awarded shall be added to the marks obtained in the main examination by each such candidate. 16. In working out this procedure, if the minimum of 15 times of the candidates are identified and results declared, it would not be necessary to pick up more general/reserved candidates. It would not be necessary to declare the result of more than 15 times the total notified vacancies/posts so as to enable them to compete in the main examination. The object of screening test is to eliminate unduly long number of persons to appear for main examination. If more candidates are called by declaring their result in preliminary examination, the object of Rule 13 would be frustrated.” 29. Indisputably, the preliminary examination is not a part of the main examination. The merit of the candidate is not judged thereby. Only an eligibility criterion is fixed. The papers for holding the examination comprise of general studies and mental ability. Indisputably, the preliminary examination is not a part of the main examination. The merit of the candidate is not judged thereby. Only an eligibility criterion is fixed. The papers for holding the examination comprise of general studies and mental ability. Such a test must be held to be necessary for the purpose of judging the basic eligibility of the candidates to hold the tests. How and in what manner the State as also the Commission would comply with the constitutional requirements of Article 335 of the Constitution of India should ordinarily not be allowed to be questioned. 31. We have noticed hereinbefore, that candidates belonging to the reserved categories as specified in the notification are not required to pay any fee. Their age is relaxed up to five years. It is, therefore, not correct to contend that what is given by one hand is sought to be taken by another. They can, thus, appear in the examination for a number of times. Indisputably, the right conferred upon the respondent-writ petitioners in terms of Rules 22 and 22A of the Andhara Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 was to be protected. The extent of relaxation has been recognised. By reason of such a provision, the right to be considered has not been taken away. 32. Judging of merit may be at several tiers. It may undergo several filtrations. Ultimately, the constitutional scheme is to have the candidates who would be able to serve the society and discharge the functions attached to the office. Vacancies are not filled up by way of charity. Emphasis has all along been made, times without number, to select candidates and/or students based upon their merit in each category. The disadvantaged group or the socially backward people may not be able to compete with the open category people but that would not mean that they would not be able to pass the basic minimum criteria laid down therefor. 40. Indisputably, when the said words were used, it took its clue from S. Jaffer Saheb. The expression might have been loosely used but its purport and object had been understood by candidates including the writ petitioners. The provisions for holding the preliminary examination were for the purpose of maintaining a basic standard. The High Court has directed deletion of the said words.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. The expression might have been loosely used but its purport and object had been understood by candidates including the writ petitioners. The provisions for holding the preliminary examination were for the purpose of maintaining a basic standard. The High Court has directed deletion of the said words.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. In view of the aforesaid decisions the reservation policy is not applicable in preliminary test. Moreover, marks of the Preliminary Test are also not calculated for arranging the candidate in seriatim number as per their merits. There are various purposes to hold preliminary examination, including for maintaining minimum basic standard. 8. Counsel for the appellants submits that in the State of Uttar Pradesh there was a reservation in Preliminary Test. The same was challenged in a writ petition which was quashed and setaside and thereafter the S.L.P. was preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the State of Uttar Pradesh in which stay has been granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Counsel for the appellants is also relying upon the facts that in the State of Bihar there was a reservation in Preliminary Test which was challenged before the learned Single Judge in a writ petition and the said reservation was quashed and set aside by the learned Single Judge, Patna High Court and the said decision was stayed by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court and, therefore, in the State of Jharkhand also these appellants are seeking stay in the declaration of the main examination which has been conducted in the month of May, 2015. We are not in agreement with the arguments canvassed by the counsel for the appellants mainly for the following reasons: a) In both the States namely viz. Uttar Pradesh as well as in the State of Bihar, the reservation was already made applicable in the Preliminary Test which was quashed and ultimately stay was granted whereas in the facts of the present case reservation is not applicable in the Preliminary Test. As stated hereinabove applicability of the reservation in the preliminary test is a policy decision. Uttar Pradesh as well as in the State of Bihar, the reservation was already made applicable in the Preliminary Test which was quashed and ultimately stay was granted whereas in the facts of the present case reservation is not applicable in the Preliminary Test. As stated hereinabove applicability of the reservation in the preliminary test is a policy decision. Those states in which the reservation has been made applicable may be in the policy decision of the States whereas in the State of Jharkhand, there is no such policy decision taken by the Government and, therefor, while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India this Court will not give a direction to the State to apply reservation at the Preliminary Test. b) The main writ petition bearing W.P.(S) no. 1524 of 2015 is pending before the learned Single Judge and is listed for its final hearing today. c) It is one thing to quash the reservation which is already applicable in the preliminary test, as happened in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, whereas, it is altogether another thing to give a direction to the State of Jharkhand to apply reservation at the Preliminary Test. There is vast difference between these two. Policy decision can be quashed if it is violative of the constitutional provisions, but, to give a direction to evolve a policy which as stated herein above is a complex decision to be taken by the State and no writ of mandamus can be issued upon the State to evolve a new policy by changing the existing policy. 9. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons and the judicial pronouncements no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the Interlocutory application preferred by these appellants. We see no reason to take any other view than what is taken by the learned Single Judge. 10. There is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal hence, the same is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.