JUDGMENT M.N. Bhandari, J. - The writ petitions were filed by the petitioner-non-appellants to challenge the selection and result of the Preliminary Examination of the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services Combined Competitive Examination, 2016 where separate merit list was published for Special Backward Class ("SBC") to call for Mains Examination. The reservation to SBC was struck down by this court. The writ petitions were allowed with a direction to declare the result afresh thus present special appeals have been filed by the appellant-Rajasthan Public Service Commission to challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE : 2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (in short "the RPSC") issued an advertisement on 28th April, 2016 to invite applications for Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services Combined Competitive Examination, 2016. The selection was divided in three parts - Preliminary Examination for shortlisting, Mains Examination and interview. The candidates were called for appearance in the Preliminary Examination for short-listing. The result thereupon was declared fifteen times to each category in pursuance of Rule 15 of the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Service (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1999 (for short "the Rules of 1999"). It was for Open Category, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Class and Special Backward Classes. After declaration of result, reservation provided to the SBC was struck down by the Division Bench of this court in bunch of writ petitions led by Captain Gurvinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, DB Civil Writ Petition No. 1645/2016, decided on 9th December, 2016. 3. In view of the judgment in the case of Captain Gurvinder Singh (supra), the candidates were to be called fifteen times to each category after eliminating SBC. Accordingly, the RPSC did not call any candidate from SBC category but shifted them in the category of OBC candidates. The outcome of the aforesaid was two-fold. Firstly, appearance of OBC category candidates in the Mains Examination in excess to fifteen times is in violation of Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999 and, at the same time, denial of opportunity to open category candidates by equal number. The RPSC should have revised the result so as to maintain it in consonance to Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999. In the background aforesaid, writ petitions were filed to seek compliance of Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999. 4. The RPSC should have revised the result so as to maintain it in consonance to Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999. In the background aforesaid, writ petitions were filed to seek compliance of Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999. 4. In all the writ petitions, leaving one, an interim order was passed and, accordingly, the petitioner-non-appellants could appear in the Mains Examination. They, however, remained unsuccessful. One petitioner namely, Mansi Tiwari, could not appear in the Mains Examination in absence of an interim order. 5. It is submitted that it is not only sufferance of one but all the candidates belonging to open category to the extent of 5% of the total posts so advertised and, otherwise, fifteen times to it. The prayer in the writ petitions was for quashing of the result. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions. The RPSC has been directed to declare the result of Preliminary Examination afresh and it has to be strictly in consonance to Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999. The direction aforesaid has been challenged by the RPSC. 6. It is admitted that strict compliance of Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999 could not be made. The OBC candidates have been called in excess to fifteen times in the Mains Examination but it is not of much relevance. It is for the reason that petitioners were given opportunity to appear in the examination but remained unsuccessful. The RPSC is still open to take further steps as directed by the court but selection has gone beyond Preliminary Examination. The Mains Examination was conducted during pendency of the petitions followed by interview. The recommendations for appointment of eligible candidates have already been made but due to interim order by the Division Bench of this court, the appointments have not been given. 7. The RPSC has filed an additional affidavit pursuant to the directions of this court to indicate that if, at all, result is revised, 145 candidates from open category would become eligible for Mains Examination. It is by giving figures of SBC candidates shifted to OBC category and after migration of few candidates to open category. In any case, it has been admitted that sufferance has been caused to the open category candidates. In the facts and circumstances, prayer of the RPSC is to save the selections, with appropriate directions in favour of open category candidates. In any case, it has been admitted that sufferance has been caused to the open category candidates. In the facts and circumstances, prayer of the RPSC is to save the selections, with appropriate directions in favour of open category candidates. It is moreso when non-appellant-petitioners have not suffered in any manner other than one. If only for one candidate, direction for holding Mains Examination and interview is given, it would be carried out but entire selections would be delayed for the purpose of appointment. A prayer is, accordingly, made to set aside the order passed by learned Single Judge while maintaining the selection. 8. The appeal has been seriously opposed by learned counsel appearing for the non-appellants. He submits that pleadings of the appeal demonstrate acceptance of mistake and illegality committed by the RPSC. It has been admitted by the RPSC that in the Mains Examination, many open category candidates were deprived from appearance. 9. If the additional affidavit submitted by the RPSC is also taken into consideration, then shifting of SBC candidates to OBC has resulted in violation of Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999. The candidates could not have been called for Mains Examination in excess to fifteen times to each category but OBC candidates were called in excess to fifteen times. It has consequence on the open category candidates because equivalent number of open category candidates were deprived from appearance in the Mains Examination, thereby, learned Single Judge has rightly issued direction to declare result of the Preliminary Examination afresh. The direction is not to hold the Preliminary Examination afresh. 10. Learned counsel for non-appellants has given reference of subsequent order passed by the Apex Court on an appeal preferred by the State Government in the case of Captain Gurvinder Singh (supra). The Apex Court did not permit reservation to SBC in the selection but allowed to continue those who remained successful and appointed pursuant to selection. In the subsequent order, the Apex Court even specified number of such candidates to be 1152. Hence, the RPSC was under an obligation to declare the result afresh by eliminating SBC candidates. 11. It is also stated that while declaring result category-wise, the RPSC was required to arrange it without applying reservation, whether it is vertical or horizontal. The reservation is provided in the appointments and not at every stage of recruitment. Hence, the RPSC was under an obligation to declare the result afresh by eliminating SBC candidates. 11. It is also stated that while declaring result category-wise, the RPSC was required to arrange it without applying reservation, whether it is vertical or horizontal. The reservation is provided in the appointments and not at every stage of recruitment. Reference of judgments of this court in the case of Dharamveer Tholia & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in 2000(3) WLC 399 and in the case of State of Raj. & Ors. Vs. Hanuman Jat & Ors., reported in 2017 (1) RLW 525 (Raj.) has been given. While arranging list fifteen times to each category, the RPSC is applying reservation even therein and, accordingly, migrated certain candidates of a particular category to another though not permissible at that stage. It is for the reason that while arranging category-wise list, it was keeping in mind reservation though not applicable at that stage. If the RPSC would have arranged category-wise list without applying reservation, it would have been different. Taking into consideration the aforesaid also, a prayer is made to dismiss the appeals while maintaining the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 12. In the alternate, learned counsel for non-appellants submits that if result of the Mains Examination so as the interview is maintained, atleast the RPSC may be directed to call the candidates from open category to make good of their number by applying mandate of Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999. If the aforesaid direction is given, then subject to the result of Mains Examination, successful candidates can be called for the interview so as to assess their merit. If the candidates called for the Mains Examination and in the interview secure more or equivalent marks to the last candidate of their category, should be given appointment either by eliminating equal number of selected candidates or by enhancing vacancies for the aforesaid. In that case, least disturbance to the selection would be caused and, at the same time, justice would be done to those deserve it, that too, in compliance of Rules of 1999 and as per judgment of this court. It is further submitted that excess candidates of OBC may be eliminated, if they could remain successful in the Mains Examination and the interview. It is further submitted that excess candidates of OBC may be eliminated, if they could remain successful in the Mains Examination and the interview. In fact, they could not have been called, if the list would have been arranged fifteen times to the post of each category. 13. Mr. MA Khan, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, has filed an application and reply to it has also been filed by the appellant. It is submitted that few candidates of open category, who were not petitioners but are sufferer due to shifting of SBC candidates to the OBC category, may also be given same relief. It is due to ignorance of open category candidates. On elimination of SBC category, equivalent number of open category candidates should have been called. A prayer is made to allow the application to appear in Mains Examination so that applicant may also get justice. A prayer is, accordingly, made to allow the application and, at the same time, to grant relief in favour of the applicants. 14. The application aforesaid has been opposed by learned counsel appearing for the appellant-RPSC. He submits that applicants are those who were sleeping and did not file writ petition at the relevant time. If they would have approached the court in time, possibility of interim order followed by appearance in the Mains Examination would have been there. In view of the above, relief prayed by the applicant/s may not be granted. 15. We have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and pondered upon the issues raised before us. 16. The facts of the case have been given in the earlier paras of judgment and based on those facts, main question for our consideration is as to how the RPSC should have proceeded in the selection pursuant to the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services Combined Competitive Examination, 2016. After declaring the result of Preliminary Examination, reservation to SBC was held unconstitutional. If ideal condition is to be applied, answer would be to declare the result of Preliminary Examination afresh because result was earlier declared prior to judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Captain Gurvinder Singh (supra) thus list of SBC was also prepared. The reservation in favour of SBC candidates was struck down subsequent to declaration of result of Preliminary Examination. The reservation in favour of SBC candidates was struck down subsequent to declaration of result of Preliminary Examination. In case of declaration of result afresh, it would be strictly in consonance to Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999. 17. The candidates would be called fifteen times to each category without any violation. 18. The position of fact is, however, that result of Preliminary Examination was not revised even after holding reservation in favour of SBC candidates to be unconstitutional. The RPSC, however, eliminated the list of SBC candidates though it is by merging them with OBC candidates. It was as a second alternate after judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Captain Gurvinder Singh (supra) because list of SBC candidates could not have been maintained subsequent to it but the RPSC was also under an obligation to keep the list of OBC candidates only fifteen times to their post. 19. It has not been denied by the RPSC that candidates were called from and amongst OBC category in excess to fifteen times in violation of Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999. It is also a fact that equivalent number of open category candidates were deprived to get a chance to appear in the Mains Examination thus violation of Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999 has been disputed. It could have been avoided by revising result of Preliminary Examination after holding reservation in favour of the SBC to be unconstitutional. It could have been even by revising the list of OBC and open category to make it fifteen times to the post of each category. 20. It could have been avoided by revising result of Preliminary Examination after holding reservation in favour of the SBC to be unconstitutional. It could have been even by revising the list of OBC and open category to make it fifteen times to the post of each category. 20. Para (ii) of the ground of appeal by the RPSC is quoted hereunder to show their admission for correction in the action: "(ii) That after the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge, an exercise has been undertaken by the respondent Commission that even if benefit of 5% reservation is included in the open category, then how many candidates on the basis of their cut off marks will be able to qualify the preliminary examination and that exercise has been undertaken by the respondent Commission which shall be kept ready for perusal of this Hon'ble Court at the time of hearing of the appeal and therefore, in the interest of justice, it will be a better course of action if the candidates belonging to the Open category are declared successful by excluding 5% quota of SBC candidates and including it in General category." 21. The RPSC has submitted that during pendency of the writ petitions, Mains Examination and interview have already been conducted. In such circumstances, quashing of those examinations would be of serious consequence. It can otherwise be saved by evolving a method making action of the respondents to be in consonance to the Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999 and at the same time, not to affect the candidates already selected in the Mains Examination and participated in the interview other than those who were not entitled to appear in the Mains Examination, if list of successful candidates, after Preliminary Examination would have been maintained fifteen times to the post, strictly category-wise. 22. The RPSC has even filed affidavit to indicate as to how many open category candidates were deprived from Mains Examination. 23. To make the things in consonance to Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999, this court is of the opinion that the RPSC should undertake following exercise and therein, even to permit the petitioner and applicants of the open category if they come in merit on arranging the list of open category in consonance to Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999. It can be on the following directions: (i) As per Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999, the RPSC was required to arrange the list fifteen times to the post category-wise. They could not have exceeded the list beyond fifteen times to the post of each category. The violation of Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999 exists in regard to OBC category due to merger of SBC candidates. In view of the above, the RPSC is directed to maintain the list of OBC category to the extent of fifteen times to the post meant for them. The name of the candidates called in excess to fifteen times be kept separately. After exercise aforesaid, they would find out whether the candidates called in the Mains Examination from the separate list remained successful therein. If no such candidate remains successful in the Mains Examination out of separate list then no further exercise would be required, rather, result of successful candidates in the Mains Examination can be maintained as it is. However, if any candidate remains successful then to find out whether such a candidate remained successful even in the interview. If no candidate from separate list remains successful in the interview then also list of successful candidates in the interview would be maintained. If candidates from OBC category remain successful in the interview also, they would not be entitled for appointment as were called in excess to fifteen times to the post of his/her category. The exercise aforesaid would not only make action of the RPSC in consonance to Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999 but further save result of all those candidates who are otherwise not affected by the present litigation. (ii) The directions given above would take care of list of OBC candidates to be appointed in consonance to Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999, thereby, to eliminate the candidates called in excess to fifteen times to the post in their category. It has consequential effect on the open category. If the RPSC would have maintained list of OBC category, fifteen times to the post then candidates of open category would have been called to the extent of eliminated candidates of OBC catgory. In fact, fifteen times to 5% of the post from open category have been called less but we find only few candidates before the court from and amongst the sufferer. In fact, fifteen times to 5% of the post from open category have been called less but we find only few candidates before the court from and amongst the sufferer. We cannot open this litigation for those sleeping over the matter. However, this court would appropriately grant relief in favour of those entitled to the benefit in consonance to Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999. The petitioner, Mansi Tiwari and the applicants would accordingly be called for Mains Examination if they get their name in the merit on arranging the list strictly in consonance to Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999, thereby, to maintain it fifteen times to the posts meant for open category. The Mains Examination for them would be conducted at the earliest and if possible, then within one month followed by interview of successful candidates, if any. The result thereupon would be maintained either without any change or with re-shuffling while carrying out the direction given in Para No.(i). (iii) It would be necessary to make it clear that while undertaking the exercise given in Para Nos.(i) and (ii), the RPSC would not apply reservation for arranging list fifteen times to each category. It has been admitted by the RPSC that reservation is provided in the appointment and not at every stage of selection thus the arrangement of category-wise of list would be without involving element of reservation. It would be arranged as has been decided by the court in the case of Hanuman Jat & Ors. (supra). (iv) The directions in Para Nos.(i) and (ii) are, otherwise, in consonance to a para of ground of the appeal. The RPSC agreed to rectify the error but with the effort to save the selection. 24. With the aforesaid, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The appeals are disposed of with the directions given above. 25. A copy of this order be placed in each connected file.