ORDER : Mr. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (herein after to be called as the ‘R.P.S.C.’) issued an advertisement dated 12.01.2015 (Annexure-1) inviting applications for recruitment to the post of College Lecturers for imparting studies to the students in the Colleges established in the State of Rajasthan by Rajasthan State Government, Post of College Lecturer for different subjects for advertised to be precise for twenty-eight subjects. 2. Petitioner, herein belongs to the Other Backward Class Category and had applied for the post of College Lecturer in the subject of Physics. The R.P.S.C. conducted a written competitive examination for the recruitment to the post of College Lecturers and a candidate had to attempt three questions papers of having weight-age of 75, 75 and 50 marks respectively. Twenty-four marks were reserved for the interview and the merit list was to be prepared taking into account the numbers obtained by the candidate in the written competitive examination and interview. Thus, merit list was to be prepared after clubbing marks obtained in written competitive examination and interview. Petitioner, herein has not been called for the interview. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner, herein has obtained more marks in the written competitive examination than the last candidate called for interview in the general category. The petitioner has apprehension that the respondent-R.P.S.C. will not call her for interview as respondent-R.P.S.C. may oust petitioner because she has not secured necessary cut off marks in the reserved category of the Other Backward Classes. 4. Hence, present petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying interalia that a direction be issued to the respondent - R.P.S.C. to consider the petitioner in the General Category as marks obtained by the petitioner are more than the last cut off marks obtained by the last candidate in the General Category. 5. This Court would have waited till respondent - R.P.S.C. had taken final decision. 6. 5. This Court would have waited till respondent - R.P.S.C. had taken final decision. 6. The R.P.S.C., is relying upon a judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and another v. Hanuman Jat and Others, (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No.635 of 2016, decided on 13.05.2016, wherein it was held that the preliminary examination is only screening examination for preparing list of candidates in general and reserved category for calling them to undertake written competitive examination as preliminary examination or screening examination determine bench mark for participation in written competitive examination. It will be pertinent to note that case of Hanuman Jat (supra) was in respect of Rajasthan State & Subordinate Services, where marks obtained by candidate in preliminary or screening examination are not carried forward. 7. Division Bench in Hanuman Jat’s case (supra) further held that since the marks obtained in the preliminary examination are not to be counted, therefore, for calling the candidate for written-examination respective list for each category, be it general or reserve category be prepared on the basis of marks secured in the preliminary examination. Thus, qua each category list on the basis of marks obtained in preliminary or screening examination had to operate for participation in written competitive examination in respect of Rajasthan State & Subordinate Services. Therefore, according to Hanuman Jat’s case (supra) the candidate in the reserved category, who has secured more marks than the last candidate in general category cannot be considered in the General Category for determining his eligibility to appear in the written examination. In other words, as per case of Hanuman Jat (supra), no migration of reserved category candidate to general category is permissible even though candidate belonging to reserved category has secured more marks than the last candidate in general category. 8. Mr. M.F. Baig, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-R.P.S.C. has submitted that the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Hanuman Jat’s case (supra) has been assailed in S.L.P. and the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. 9. The ratio of law laid down in the case of Hanuman Jat (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as in the present case, no preliminary examination was held. 9. The ratio of law laid down in the case of Hanuman Jat (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as in the present case, no preliminary examination was held. For the post of College Lecturer marks obtained in written examination are to be clubbed with the marks obtained in the interview. Hence, rule regarding calling of candidate for written-examination after preliminary examination cannot be invoked in the present case. A grave error is being committed by R.P.S.C. to await decision of Apex Court in Hanuman Jat’s case (supra) as the issue raised in Hanuman Jat’s case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 10. Mr. Baig, learned counsel appearing for respondent-R.P.S.C. has further submitted that the matter is also pending before the Division Bench of this Court in Surghan Singh Yadav & Others v. State of Rajasthan & another, (D.B. Civil Writs (CW) No.8930 of 2016 titled as Surghan Singh Yadav & Others v. State of Rajasthan & another). 11. It is to be noted here that the Division Bench of this Court in Surghan Singh Yadav’s case (supra), while passing interim order, had rejected the contention raised that the candidate belonging to the reserved category, if secure more marks than the last candidate in the General Category, shall not be considered under the General Category. 12. The controversy raised in Hanuman Jat’s case (supra) is not germane to the facts of the present case. 13. It is a settled legal proposition that if a candidate in reserved category secure more marks than the last candidate in the General Category, he is to be treated as a candidate in the General Category and the reserved point vacated by him shall be available to the next meritorious candidate in the reserved category. 14. This view was reiterated by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sheikh Mohd. Afzal v. State of Rajasthan and another, reported as A.I.R. 2008 Raj. 21. 15. 14. This view was reiterated by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sheikh Mohd. Afzal v. State of Rajasthan and another, reported as A.I.R. 2008 Raj. 21. 15. The Full Bench of this Court in Para 11 of the aforesaid judgment observed as under:- “11.”We state the legal position thus : where a candidate belonging to reserved category gets selected competing with open category candidates on the basis of merit, the selection of such candidate needs to be considered in the general category and cannot be counted against the reserved category since such selection is purely based on merit. However, the constitutional right of such candidate belonging to reserved category is not taken away and such selection of a reserved category candidate on merit in open competition does not put him or her in disadvantageous position than the other less meritorious reserved category candidates who are selected against the quota reserved for that category, be it a preference of subject or institution or place or to such other right to which he/she may be entitled as if he/she were selected in the reserved category. In the case of Ritesh R. Sah and Anurag Patel, the Supreme Court has emphasised this position. Obviously, in the matter of admission, the competent authority has to adhere to and abide by the legal position expounded by the Supreme Court in the case of Ritesh R. Sah and Anurag Patel and noticed by us above.” 16. The Full Bench of this Court had relied upon a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Anurag Patel v. U.P. Public Service Commission, reported as 2005 (9) S.C.C. 742 . 17. In Anurag Patel’s case (supra), the Supreme Court held that where a candidate belonging to the reserved category get selected competing with open category candidates on the basis of merit, the selection of such candidate is to be considered in the General Category and cannot be counted against the reserved category, since such selection is purely based on merit. 18. Similar view has also been reiterated by a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul and others, reported as A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1378. 19. 18. Similar view has also been reiterated by a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul and others, reported as A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1378. 19. The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) v. Ramesh Ram and Others etc., reported as A.I.R. 2010 S.C. 2691, affirmed the earlier view and held that a candidate, who in the written-examination has secured more marks than the last candidate in the General Category will be treated as a candidate in the General Category and after interview his constitutional right will not be eclipsed and his case shall be further considered in the category to which he belong, if marks secured by him after interview are less than the candidate in the General Category, but more than the last candidate in the reserved category. 20. It will be apposite to reproduce here relevant Para 47 of the aforesaid judgment regarding allotment of cadre :- “47. The proviso to Rule 16 (1) and Rule 16 (2) operate in different dimensions and it is untenable to argue that these provisions are contradictory or inconsistent with each other. As mentioned earlier, in the examination for the year 2005, 32 reserved candidates (31 OBC candidates and 1 SC candidate) qualified as per the general qualifying standard [Rule 16 (1)]. These MRC candidates did not avail of any of the concessions and relaxations in the eligibility criteria at any stage of the examination, and further they secured enough marks to place them above the general qualifying standard. MRC candidates are entitled to one of the two posts - one depending on their performance in the General list and other depending on their position in the Reserved List. When MRC candidates are put in the General list on their own merit they do not automatically relinquish their reserved status. By the operation of Rule 16 (2), the reserved status of an MRC candidate is protected so that his/her better performance does not deny such candidate the chance to be allotted to a more preferred service. Where, however, an MRC is able to obtain his preferred post by virtue of his/her ranking in the General List, he/she is not counted as a Reserved Candidate and is certainly not counted amongst the respective reservation quota.” 21. Where, however, an MRC is able to obtain his preferred post by virtue of his/her ranking in the General List, he/she is not counted as a Reserved Candidate and is certainly not counted amongst the respective reservation quota.” 21. Consequently, present writ petition stands disposed of by issuing following directions:- “(a) That a candidate in the reserved category, if he or she has secured more marks than the last candidate in the General Category, he or she will be called for the interview treating him or her in the General Category. (b) That if taking into account the marks obtained in the written-examination and interview a candidate of reserved category secure more marks than the last candidate in the General Category, he will be considered in the General Category and he shall not occupy the point available to him in the reserved category. (c) That due to migration of the reserved category candidate to the General Category point vacated by reserved category candidate shall go to the next candidate in the reserved category. (d) That the candidate belonging to the reserved category, if secure total marks in the written-examination and interview less than the last candidate in the General Category, but more than the last candidate in the reserved category then his case shall be considered in the appropriate reserve category.” 22. The respondent - Rajasthan Public Service Commission is directed to act in consonance with the above directions. 23. The above directions have been issued as controversy raised in Hanuman Jat’s case (supra) has no bearing over the issue raised in present petition. 24. Upon disposal of main petition, the stay application, filed therewith does not survive and the same is also disposed of.