ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the result of preliminary examination published on 30.10.2017 for Jharkhand Combined Police Sub-Inspector Competitive Examination, 2017 pursuant to Advertisement No. 05/2017 on the ground that the reservation policy has not been implemented in the preliminary examination result in its true letter and spirit so far as Extreme Backward Class (Schedule-I) [in short “EBC”] and Backward Class (Schedule-2) [in short “BC”] are concerned. 3. The factual background of the case is that the petitioners applied for the Jharkhand Combined Police Sub-Inspector Competitive Examination, 2017 pursuant to Advertisement No. 05/2017 under the EBC category. In the preliminary examination, the petitioners appeared but in the result published on 30.10.2017, their names did not find place in the list of the successful candidates. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that in the result of the preliminary examination, the cut off marks of only four categories i.e Unreserved Category, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Primitive Tribe were published, however from the advertisement, it is evident that there are five categories i.e Unreserved Category, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, EBC and BC, thus not publishing the cut off marks of EBC and BC is in violation of the condition of the advertisement itself. It is further submitted that the petitioners came to know that no candidate of EBC and BC has been shortlisted or selected. It is further submitted that the petitioners have crossed the upper age limit fixed for unreserved category, hence they applied under EBC category and as such, they cannot be adjusted in any other category in view of Advertisement No. 05/2017. It is further submitted that the respondent-Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (in short “JSSC”) has committed gross error and violated the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the guidelines of the State/Central Government in not publishing the cut off marks of all the categories as a consequence of which, the petitioners have not been selected in the preliminary examination. It is further submitted that the petitioners represented the respondents vide letter(s) dated 02.11.2017 and claimed that since the reservation policy has not been implemented in the preliminary examination result, the same may be revised according to the rules/guidelines of the Government of Jharkhand and also in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It is further submitted that the petitioners represented the respondents vide letter(s) dated 02.11.2017 and claimed that since the reservation policy has not been implemented in the preliminary examination result, the same may be revised according to the rules/guidelines of the Government of Jharkhand and also in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It is further submitted that the revised result was published on 11.08.2017 in which also, the respondents did not rectify the said error pointed out by the petitioners. It is also submitted that in 4th Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination held by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission in the year 2011-12, the reservation policy in the preliminary examination was followed/implemented and the cut off marks were published category wise. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-JSSC denied all the allegations levelled against the respondents and submits that total 3019 posts were requisitioned by the State Government under different categories in which 209 posts were reserved for EBC and 172 posts for BC. It is further submitted that as per Clause-11(iii) of the advertisement prospectus, minimum five times candidates were to be shortlisted for Mains Examination from each category according to their merit. It is further submitted that against 209 vacancy for EBC, total 1364 candidates and against 172 vacancy for BC category, 1670 candidates have been shortlisted for Mains Examination and as such the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that candidates from EBC and BC have not been shortlisted is baseless. It is a settled proposition of law that the benefit of reservation cannot be extended in the preliminary examination. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-JSSC puts reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Lakshman Toppo & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. (L.P.A No. 467 of 2015) and submits that the applicability of reservation benefits in the preliminary examination is a policy decision of the government and no writ of mandamus can be issued to the State to extend the reservation benefits in the preliminary examination. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. (L.P.A No. 467 of 2015) and submits that the applicability of reservation benefits in the preliminary examination is a policy decision of the government and no writ of mandamus can be issued to the State to extend the reservation benefits in the preliminary examination. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioners, who belong to EBC category, applied for the Jharkhand Combined Police Sub-Inspector Competitive Examination, 2017 pursuant to Advertisement No. 05/2017 and appeared for preliminary examination, but have not been shortlisted/selected for Main Examination. The leaned counsel for the petitioners assiduously argues that they have not been extended benefits of reservation in the preliminary examination, which is in violation of the prevalent policy/rule of the State Government, however, no such policy/rule has been placed before this Court to substantiate the said argument. So far the reservation of EBC in public employment is concerned; the same is governed by Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India, which provides for extending benefits of reservation for the advancement of socially and educationally backward class of citizens or for Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Caste. The Article 16(4) of Constitution of India does not provide for extending the benefits of reservation at every stage of the process of appointment. It is upon the appropriate Government to lay down policy by which the disadvantageous group may be adequately represented, however the ultimate purpose is to have sufficient number of candidates, who would be able to serve the society and discharge the functions attached to the office. Policy decision must be left to the government, which alone could decide as to which policy should be adopted after considering various aspects depending upon the prevailing situations. In matter of policy decisions, the court should not normally impose its own views upon the policy makers. The preliminary examination is only a screening meant for elimination of unduly long list of candidates so as to provide the opportunity to only to limited deserving candidates to sit in the Mains Examination for which an arrangement is made to take as many candidates by which at least three times candidates are selected for viva voce examination. The respondent-JSSC in the advertisement itself has specifically mentioned that for the mains examination, the candidates of each category would be taken five times of the total vacancies for the said category. The respondent-JSSC in the advertisement itself has specifically mentioned that for the mains examination, the candidates of each category would be taken five times of the total vacancies for the said category. The preliminary examination is not a part of the mains examination and its marks is not taken into consideration to select a candidate in public employment. It is not the case of the petitioners that any candidate, who has obtained less marks than them, has been selected. As per the assertion of the respondent-JSSC, the petitioners have got 332 and 329 marks respectively whereas the last selected candidate of their category has got more than 335 marks. Thus, no unfairness appears on the part of the respondent-JSSC. Moreover, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no person from their category has been selected is also not tenable as it is evident from Annexure-B of counter affidavit dated 16.11.2017 filed by the respondent-JSSC that against the total 209 vacancy for EBC, 1364 candidates and against the total 172 vacancy for BC, 1670 candidates, who have got more marks than the petitioners, have been shortlisted for the mains examination. The yardstick taken by the respondent-JSSC has been applied uniformly to all who participated in the preliminary examination. Thus, in my considered opinion, the respondent- JSSC has not made any discrimination in adopting common yardstick for all such candidates. The learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lakshman Toppo (supra) also, after relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Baloji Badhavath and Others reported in (2009) 5 SCC 1 , has held that it is the policy matter of the State to provide benefits of reservation in preliminary examination and the writ court should be slow in issuing any such direction to the State. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I see no reason to interfere with the result of the preliminary examination published pursuant to Advertisement No. 05 of 2017. 8. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.