JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioners seek to assail the respondent's action in filling up 20 seats of Prabhodhaks reserved for the O.B.C. category with candidates from the general category in the selection process held in the year 2008. 2. Facts in brief are that an advertisement for direct recruitment on the posts of Prabodhak under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 was issued in the year 2008. Initially total 999 vacancies were advertised for District Jalore. Thereafter a corrigendum was issued whereby number of total seats in the Jalore District was enhanced to 1086 and 227 seats of the total available seats were reserved for O.B.C. candidates. The petitioners applied in the said selection process against the seats reserved for O.B.C. category and were declared successful. Thereafter they were called for interview. The distribution of available seats was done by the respondents. The petitioners' claim is that they were not given appointment despite coming in the merit list of O.B.C. candidates and having secured the requisite number of marks so as to be entitled to be appointed as prabodhak, Upon realising that they had been denied appointment without justification, they approached the office of District Education Officer, Primary Education, District Jalore with their grievances and were provided with a copy of the list of 20 candidates belonging to general category who had been appointed against the seats reserved for O.B.c. category. The petitioners claim that despite being eligible for being appointed against the reserved quota of seats for the O.B.C. category, they were denied appointment owing to the arbitrary and highhanded action of respondent authorities. They submitted numerous representations to the respondent authorities for adhering to the roster of the seats reserved' for the O.B.C. category but to no avail. Similar discrepancies occurred in the selection processes conducted in other districts as well and a number of writ petitions came to be preferred before the Jaipur Bench of this Court and were decided by a common order dated 10.8.2011 passed in a bunch of writ petitions led by S.B.C. Writ Petition No. 4445/2011 Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. This Court decided the writ petitions holding that the cases of the respective petitioners be considered against the vacancies meant for OBC category. This Court decided the writ petitions holding that the cases of the respective petitioners be considered against the vacancies meant for OBC category. Now the petitioners by way of the instant writ petition pray that since they belong to the O.B.C. category and are qualified and eligible to be appointed against the reserved posts, the respondents be directed to provide them appointment in the said selection process. 3. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar Perused the material available on record. The initial stand of the respondents in the reply to the writ petition was that the list filed along with the writ petition showing that 20 candidates from the general category were adjusted against the seats meant for the reserved OBC quota was not issued by an authorised person. A specific fact is mentioned in para no. 9 of the reply that no general candidate was given appointment on the post reserved for OBC category. Total 227 posts were reserved for OBC category and 227 OBC candidates have already been given appointment. 4. Later on the petitioners' sought information in this regard by filing an application under the Right to information Act. They were supplied a list accompanied by letter dated 7.12.2012 and the said list is verbatim reproduction of the list submitted along with the petition. 5. The action in filling the seats reserved for the O.B.C. category by general category candidates is attempted to be defended in reference to Rule 8 of the Rules of 2008. However, no justification is shown as to why, despite availability of qualified meritorious O.B.C. candidates to fill the total vacancies of the O.B.C. quota, 20 seats from the said quota of 227 seats were filled from general category candidates. Copies of some orders issued by the District Education Officer have been filed on record to claim that the petitioners herein secured lesser marks and thus were lower in merit and that is why, they were denied appointment. It is also attempted to be projected that petitioners were not given appointment because they hailed from private institutions and, therefore, were not entitled to be so appointed. As a consequence, 20 seats of O.B.C. category left vacant were thereafter filled from more meritorious candidates of general category hailing from Government Institutions. However, while arguing the matter and addressing the Court, the learned govt. As a consequence, 20 seats of O.B.C. category left vacant were thereafter filled from more meritorious candidates of general category hailing from Government Institutions. However, while arguing the matter and addressing the Court, the learned govt. counsel did not dispute that even candidates hailing from private institutions are entitled to be appointed as Prabodhak as per Rules of 2008 and no restriction is available in the Rules so as to deny them this opportunity. As stated above, during pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners' cases were reconsidered and rejected for the reason that the cut off marks for appointment to the O.B.C. category was 29 whereas all the petitioners had secured lesser marks and thus the are not entitled to be appointed. However, it is admitted by the learned Govt., counsel that the cut off was fixed at 29 because general category candidates were inducted against 20 reserved seats. If these general candidates are excluded, then the cut off would be lowered. 6. As the learned Government Counsel candidly admitted that 20 candidates from the general category had been given appointment against the reserved quota for the OBC candidates, this Court is of the opinion that the action of the respondents in filling up the seats reserved for the O.B.C. category with general category candidates is totally unjustified and arbitrary as well as violative of the petitioners' fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 7. Counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 Babulal Purohit at this stage that his client belongs to the O.B.C. category and thus he cannot be shunted out now. If that is the situation, the candidate is given liberty to submit a representation to the authorities who shall consider it as per law. 8. As an upshot of the above discussion, the writ petition deserves and is hereby allowed. A fresh merit list from amongst the remaining successful candidates belonging to the O.B.C. category shall be prepared as per the roster and the candidates falling in merit shall be offered appointment against the 20 seats of the O.B.C. reserved category which have admittedly been filled from candidates belonging to the general category. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs.