JUDGMENT : 1. Shri A.M. Trivedi, Senior Counsel with Shri Rana Bhattacharya, counsel for the petitioner. 2. Shri Ashish Shroti, counsel for respondents. 3. Heard counsel for the parties for admission. 4. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the decision of the competent Authority of the respondent treating the petitioner as ineligible to appear in the main examination and, therefore, direction is sought to allow the petitioner to submit his application for main examination and to appear in that examination. 5. The petitioner appeared in the elimination test (preliminary examination) for unreserved category and secured 92 marks. According to the respondents, however, the candidates having secured 95 marks in the said examination became eligible to apply for the main examination because of the limit of ratio 1:10. 6. The petitioner, however, relies on Clause 4(2) of the advertisement to contend that the candidates having secured 90 marks or more should be treated as eligible to apply for the main examination. The relevant Clause of the said advertisement reads thus:- "(ii) Valuation, Minimum marks & Result of Online Preliminary Exam by MP Online- After completion of Online Preliminary Examination, the valuation shall be made by the software and system of MP Online, as early as possible by the MP Online. The Result shall be uploaded by MP Online on its website and copy of the Result provided by the MP Online shall, also, be uploaded on the website of the M.P. High Court. Only the candidates of UR, who secure 90 or more Marks out of 150 Marks) and the candidates of Reserved Categories (O.B.C., S.C. & S.T.), who secure 82 or more marks out of 150 Marks, (subject to a number of maximum candidates in the ratio of 1:10) shall be eligible to apply for the Main Examination. But, there shall be no limit of minimum number of candidates, if the number of the candidates securing minimum prescribed mark is less. However, candidates securing marks equal to the cut-off marks shall also be eligible to apply for the Main Examination. But, there shall be no limit of minimum number of candidates, if the number of the candidates securing minimum prescribed mark is less. However, candidates securing marks equal to the cut-off marks shall also be eligible to apply for the Main Examination. Being the screening test, no reservation shall be given to the candidates, however, in order to provide fair opportunity to all categories candidates, securing prescribed minimum mark or more mark, a separate Merit list of successful candidates, for each category, subject to maximum in 1:10 ratio of post: Number of the candidates, shall be prepared." 7. On a bare reading of this clause, we have no manner of doubt that twin condition has been provided for determination of cut off number/marks. The first criteria is minimum 90 or more marks to be secured by the unreserved candidates out of 150 marks. The second requirement which is, in our opinion, a conjunctive requirement to provide for cut off number of candidates in the ratio of 1:10. The number of posts for unreserved category for which the examination is being held is, admittedly, 45. Therefore, the cut off number of candidates ought to be 450. Total candidates found eligible by the respondents are 454 who have secured 95 or more marks. The petitioner having secured 92 marks, therefore, has been denied opportunity to appear for the main examination. 8. The petitioner has placed emphasis on the later part of second paragraph of Clause 2 as reproduced above which predicates that candidate securing marks equal to the cut off marks shall be eligible to apply for the main examination. This part of the condition will have to be read along with the earlier part of the same paragraph which requires for twin requirement of 90 or more marks out of 150 marks and maximum candidates in the ratio of 1:10. Further, the limit of 1:10 ratio would stand modified only if the number of the candidates securing minimum marks (90) were to be less in that ratio in which case all the candidates securing cut off marks (90) would become eligible to apply for the main examination. 9. Further, the limit of 1:10 ratio would stand modified only if the number of the candidates securing minimum marks (90) were to be less in that ratio in which case all the candidates securing cut off marks (90) would become eligible to apply for the main examination. 9. Since, in the present case 454 candidates have secured 95 or more marks and there are 4 candidates who have secured 95 marks for which reason all of them are required to be included, notwithstanding the outer limit of ratio of 1:10 specified in the advertisement to obviate the grievance of discrimination by the other candidates having secured same marks. Hence, no fault can be found with this approach of the respondents. 10. The next grievance of the petitioner is that the chart furnished by the respondents of candidates qualified to appear in the main examination does not disclose the actual marks secured by each of them. We fail to understand as to how this grievance can be entertained at the instance of the petitioner who has secured marks lower than the cut off marks/number of candidates in the ratio of 1:10. It is not the case of the petitioner that any one candidate out of 454 candidates declared eligible has secured lesser marks than the marks secured by the petitioner. The result of preliminary examination is already notified on official website of the respondents. In our opinion, this ground cannot be the basis to allow the petitioner to participate in the selection process and to apply for appearing in the main examination, even though he has not secured cut off marks i.e. 95 as per the cut off number of candidates in the ratio of 1:10. 11. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere in this petition. Hence, dismissed.