JUDGMENT : N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. These appeals are filed against common order dated 09.02.2011 made in SWP No. 2454/2010 and SWP No. 2570/2010 and other identical writ petitions, whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are as follows:- Respondent nos. 3 and 4 invited applications from eligible candidates vide notification dated 30.12.2008 for direct recruitment to the posts in pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000 of various gazette services i.e. (1) Junior Scale of J&K Administrative Services, (2) J&K Police Gazetted services, and (3) J&K Accounts Gazetted Services, in accordance with SRO 387, dated 01.12.2008 read with SRO 393 and the J&K PSC (Conduct of Examinations) Rules, 2005. The total number of vacancies advertised in the notification are 398, of which 210 posts were to be filled for Junior Scale of J&K Administrative Services, 84 in Police Gazetted services and 104 in J&K Accounts Gazetted services. The writ petitioners-appellants herein also submitted their applications and after scrutiny they were allowed to participate in the preliminary examination conducted by the J&K Public Service Commission on 23.05.2010 to 24.05.2010 in which 33449 candidates out of 39362 appeared. The writ petitioners qualified the preliminary examination as per criteria laid down and were declared eligible to appear in the main examinations for selection to the advertised posts. The petitioners appeared in the main written examination. A total of 6945 candidates appeared in the main written examination. The result of the main examination was declared on 30.09.2010. 3. The writ petitioners-appellants belong to different reserved categories and their names were not in the short list. As per the J&K Reservation Rules, 2005 the direct recruitment has to be made under Rule 4 of the Reservation Rules, 2005 which states that 8% posts are to be filled from Scheduled Caste category, 10% from Scheduled Tribe category, 2% from weak and under privileged classes (Social Castes), 3% from residents of areas adjoining Line of Control (ALC), 20% from residents of Backward areas (RBA), 6% from ex-servicemen and 3% from physically challenged persons. Accordingly, out of 398 posts, 225 posts are to be filled from Open Merit category and the rest are to be filled from reserved categories, i.e. 80 posts from RBA category, 31 posts from SC category, 40 posts from ST category, 14 posts from ALC category and 8 posts from OSC category. As per the scheme of selection the Public Service Commission is entitled to short list the candidates to be called for the viva voce at the ratio of 1:3. Rule 9 of SRO 387 dated 01.12.2008 (Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 2008) read thus:- "9. Interview: The number of candidates to be summoned for interview will not be more than thrice the number of vacancies to be filled. The interview will carry a maximum of 250 marks (with no minimum qualifying marks). Failure to appear in the interview shall render a candidate ineligible for being recommended for appointment notwithstanding the marks obtained by him in the written examination. Rule 10 relates to preparation of merit list and it reads thus:- "10. Merit List: Marks thus obtained by the candidates in the Main Examination (written part as w ell as interview) would determine the final order of merit. Candidates shall be allotted to the various services keeping in view their inter-se merit in the examination and the preferences expressed by them for the various services and posts; Provided that a candidate belonging to a reserved category, though not qualifying by the standard prescribed by the Commission may be declared suitable for appointment thereto by reduced standards with due regard to the maintenance of efficiency in administration, and recommended for appointment to vacancies reserved for members of such class in that service; Provided that physically challenged candidates shall be considered for selection in the services and against the posts identified for their respective categories in terms of Jammu and Kashmir Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 2003 and in accordance with their merit-cum-preference, if otherwise found suitable for selection." 4. The short listing was made by the Public Service Commission for viva voce test in terms of Rule 9. The short listing was made by the Public Service Commission for viva voce test in terms of Rule 9. The cut off mark initially fixed by the Commission for short listing of all categories was 907 and thus 1194 candidates were called for viva voce (interview).The cut off marks for SC/ST candidates was reduced i.e. for SC category 862 marks and for ST category 875 marks in order to enable the Commission to call sufficient number of candidates in these two categories to fill up the vacancies referred. Therefore, their cut off mark got reduced. The list of the short listed candidates furnished before this court is containing 1194 candidates and the last candidate has secured 907 marks. In the note mentioned it is stated that out of 1194 short listed candidates, 715 belong to Open Merit category, 149 belong to RBA category, 43 belong to SC category, 78 belong to ST category, 50 belong to ALC category and 55 belong to SLC category. Thus the category candidates in to are 479. 5. The grievance of the appellants was that even while short listing of candidates for viva Voce, reservation should have been followed at the rate of 1:3 in each category which means that 675 candidates from open merit category, 240 candidates from RBA category, 93 from. SC category, 120 from ST category, 50 candidates from ALC category and 24 from SC category were required to be called for interview. The second grievance of the appellants is that the open merit category must contain all category candidates and the same shall not be counted while short listing the category under reserved categories and if that process is followed, there must be separate cut off for open merit category and each of the reserved categories. 6. The said stand of the appellants cannot at all be accepted as it is well settled proposition of law that while short listing candidates for inviting them for interview, the rule of reservation need not to be followed. The learned Single Judge has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in (2009) 5 SCC 1 , (Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Baloji Badhavath and others) while dismissing the writ petitions which judgment is heavily relied on by the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents. The learned Single Judge has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in (2009) 5 SCC 1 , (Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Baloji Badhavath and others) while dismissing the writ petitions which judgment is heavily relied on by the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents. In the said judgment it was held that while short listing candidates for oral interview, if category wise candidates based on communal roster short listed, it would be detrimental to the meritorious candidates belonging to the reserved categories. 7. Thus the contention of the appellants that they should have been short listed for viva voce test, cannot be countenanced. As stated supra, the last candidate called for the interview by applying 1:3 ratio, which is admitted by learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the Commission, has secured 907 marks. It is not the case of the appellants that any one of them have secured 907 marks or more in the Main written examination and has not been called for the viva voce. As stated supra, similarly no Scheduled caste category candidate securing less than 862 marks and Scheduled Tribe candidates securing 875 marks have been short listed for attending the viva voce test and none of the appellants have secured more than the above marks in the Main written examination. 8. The contention of the appellants that out of 225 Open Merit vacancies, candidates belonging to reserved categories were not selected, is also factually found as incorrect because of the following particulars furnished by the Public Service Commission. 9. It is to be noted here that out of 225 candidates selected under Open Merit category, 59 candidates belonging to reserved categories were selected and while accommodating the candidates belonging to the reserved categories in the open merit category, 19 candidates were given the choice of posting as per their preference in their respective categories, namely, RBA 10, ST 5, ALC 3 and OSC 1 and those 19 vacancies were filled up from the reserved categories alone and not from Open Merit category. Thus it is evident that in the Open Merit category, 59 reserved category candidates were selected based on their merit and said number of posts were not counted while filling up the reserved category posts except changing their choice of service, numbering 19. Thus it is evident that in the Open Merit category, 59 reserved category candidates were selected based on their merit and said number of posts were not counted while filling up the reserved category posts except changing their choice of service, numbering 19. The said procedure was followed in terms of Rule 7(8) of SRO 294 of 2005 (Reservation Rules 2005). The said Rule reads thus:- "7. Preparation of the select list. (8) For purposes of services to which Combined Competitive Examination is conducted, the reserved category candidates of selected against open merit vacancies may also be considered for allotment of services allotted to their respective category as per their inter-se-merit/own preference and the resultant left over vacancies in the services in open merit shall be allotted to those reserved category candidates only, as per merit-cum-preference, against whose vacancies the reserved category candidates qualifying in the open merit are considered". 10. The last candidate selected under Open Merit category secured 928 marks in the main written examination and the cut off mark for selection of such candidate including viva voce was 1128. In RBA category the last candidates selected secured 1051 marks in total i.e. 961+90. Similarly in SC category the last selected candidate has secured (976+25) 1001 marks, in ST category the last selected candidate has secured (896+110) 1006 marks, in ALC category the last selected candidate has secured (1030+30) 1060 marks and in OSC category the last selected candidate has secured (94+100) 1094 marks. 11. Thus it is evident that in the Open Merit category vacancies, candidates belonging to all categories irrespective of their categories, were accommodated purely on the basis of the marks secured by them. As per the select list furnished, 225 candidates were selected in Open Merit category and the last selected candidate in Open Merit category has secured 1128 marks in the final selection, except four candidates who were selected under Physically Handicapped category. In RBA category 80 candidates were selected and the 79th candidate has secured 1051 marks in the final selection i.e. Main written examination and viva voce and the 80th candidate selected was under Physically handicapped category. In Scheduled Caste category 31 candidates were selected and the last candidate selected has secured total 1001 marks in the Main written examination and viva voce test. In Scheduled Caste category 31 candidates were selected and the last candidate selected has secured total 1001 marks in the Main written examination and viva voce test. Under the Scheduled Tribe category 40 candidates were selected and the last selected candidate selected under this category has secured 1006 total marks in the main written examination and viva voce test. In the ALC category 14 candidates were selected and the last selected candidate has secured 1060 marks. Similarly in OSC category 8 candidates have been selected and the last selected candidate has secured 1094 marks in the final selection. 12. In the light of the above records produced by the Public Service Commission, we are unable to find any illegality while short listing as well as in making the final selection and appointments given to 398 vacancies. 13. On the basis of the above facts and figures mentioned, which were produced by the official respondents and having regard to the well accepted proposition of law that while short listing the candidates for viva voce, reservation rules need not to be followed, we are in perfect agreement with the order of the learned Single Judge. There is no merit to accept any of the contentions raised by the appellants. The L.P. appeals are dismissed. No costs.