JUDGMENT : 1. This intra court appeal is directed against order dated 22.1.19, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellants seeking directions to the respondents to admit/invite the candidates to the extent of 15 times of the total number of vacancies reserved for Non Gazetted Employees (NGE) for recruitment to the post of Rajasthan State and Subordinate Service pursuant to Joint Competitive Examination 2018 conducted vide advertisement dated 2.4.18, stands dismissed. 2. The appeal preferred reported to be barred by limitation for 40 days, is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. The reason assigned for delay in filing the appeal is that the appellants being government servants were busy in business of general elections and therefore, could not instruct their counsel to file the appeal immediately, which is not plausible and acceptable. However, in the interest of justice, we have examined the matter on merits as well. 3. Precisely, the case set out by the appellants before the learned Single Judge was that pursuant to the examination conducted while the cut off marks for all categories have been indicated, regarding the NGE category, the cut off has not been indicated rather, it is indicated that already available in their respective category. The grievance of the appellants is that when the category wise cut off have been declared for all the categories, there was no reason not to declare cut off for NGE category separately. 4. The stand of the respondents before the learned Single Judge was that since the requisite number of NGE candidates were already included in the list of the 15 times eligible candidates declared, no separate cut off was required to be declared for NGE category. 5. It is noticed that pursuant to the direction of the court, the cut off category wise of NGE candidates was also produced by the respondents wherein in the category of OBC (Male) to which the appellants candidates belong, the cut off indicated was 76.06. The appellants herein had obtained lesser marks than the cut off marks declared and therefore, their name did not appear in the list of candidates, who have qualified for main exams. 6. The learned Single Judge after due consideration of the rival submissions, arrived at the conclusion that the appellants having obtained lesser marks than the cut off, their result indicating them as not qualified cannot be faulted with. 7. 6. The learned Single Judge after due consideration of the rival submissions, arrived at the conclusion that the appellants having obtained lesser marks than the cut off, their result indicating them as not qualified cannot be faulted with. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that despite the reservation extended to the NGE category being horizontal, the respondents were under an obligation to declare the cut off marks for the said category. Learned counsel submitted that while declaring the category wise cut offs for all the reserved categories, exclusion of NGE category is ex facie illegal and arbitrary. 8. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material on record. 9. Indisputably, pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge, the respondents had produced the cut off category wise of NGE candidates wherein the category of OBC to which the appellants belong, the cut off indicated was 76.06. It is not in dispute that the appellants have obtained lesser marks than the cut off marks indicated as above and thus, they have rightly not been included in the list of the candidates who have qualified for the main exams. As a matter of fact, after the declaration of the result of the preliminary examination, since in the list of 15 times candidates, the requisite number of category wise NGE candidates were already included and therefore, the separate cut off for NGE candidates was not declared by the RPSC. In any case, the respondents having clarified the position before the learned Single Judge that the appellants belonging to category of OBC as NGE candidates, have obtained lesser marks than the cut off marks, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted with. 10. No case for interference by us in intra court appeal jurisdiction is made out. 11. The special appeal is therefore, dismissed in limine.