JUDGMENT : S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. This judgment disposes of three connected appeals which challenge the common judgment and order of a learned Single Judge whereby, the State of Rajasthan's (hereafter "the State") review petitions were dismissed and the earlier directions, made by the Single Judge, left undisturbed. 2. Brief facts are that an advertisement dated 31/05/2008 was issued by the State through the District Education Officer, Bhilwara inviting applications to fill up 1590 posts of Prabodhaks. It is not in dispute that these selections were conducted over 10 years ago and the appointments were made about a decade ago. The respondents in these petitions (i.e. original writ petitioners) approached this Court, by filing SBCWP Nos. 5125/2015, 5126/2015 and 5227/2015. Those writ petitions sought a direction to the State to arrange the select list by including candidates who had secured 43% marks or more marks in the open category and then migrate the OBC and the other reserved categories securing that cut off or above, into the general category and for a further direction that a fresh list of OBC category candidates be drawn, having regard to the number of posts reserved. 3. The Single Judge noted that the cut off marks for open category candidates were 53 and that nevertheless on scrutiny, several candidates were found ineligible. In the first impugned order (i.e. 17/12/2015 allowing the writ petitions), the Single Judge held that candidates were invited after despite their securing marks below the cut off marks i.e. 53%. It was further held that the last candidate selected in the open category secured 43% marks. It was in these circumstances that the single judge - by the first original impugned judgment held that "migration of OBC and other reserved categories candidates have been permitted if they secured 43 or more marks" and a list of OBC category candidates was drawn thereupon. Based upon these assumptions, the Single Judge directed as follows:- "It is not in dispute that the cut off marks for open category is now 43 percent and as per the settled law, those reserve caste candidates possess more marks than the last candidate in the open category, needs to be migrated in the open category. The list of OBC and SC/ST candidates is to be drawn thereupon to the extent of reservation. The list of OBC and SC/ST candidates is to be drawn thereupon to the extent of reservation. In the light of the aforesaid, these writ petitions are allowed with the direction to the respondents to arrange the list in the manner indicated herein above and for clarification, it is again directed that after drawing the merit list of open category, which include every candidate if secured 43 percent or more marks, they would draw the merit list of OBC and other reserve caste category. The post meant for OBC candidate would be filled by drawing the merit list to the size of the post reserved for them and if the petitioners find place in the merit list to the size of the vacancies and otherwise eligible, they would be given appointment within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order." 4. The State approached the Single Judge in review proceedings, contending that the petitioner (Omprakash, in SBCWP No. 5125/2015 and two others) had approached the Principal Seat at Jodhpur, whereby his petition (SBCWP No. 7510/2010) was rejected on 15/01/2014. The main ground on which the petitioner had approached the court was that the rules did not postulate minimum marks for selection and, therefore, the rejection of his candidature was improper. It was further stated that the petitioners' name found place at Sr. Nos. 1427, 1424 and 1418 but ignoring their candidature one Kailash Chand Koli at Sr. No. 1447 was appointed. The appellant refuted this allegation contending that whereas the petitioners belong to Other Backward Class (OBC Category) Kailash Chand Koli belonged to the SC category. On the basis of the submissions and having regard to the pleadings the court noticed that two petitioners had obtained only 21 and one had obtained 23 marks, respectively in interview whereas the last appointment was given to a candidate who secured 33 marks in the OBC category. Therefore, it was held, as follows: "In view of above fact, there is no substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, no direction can be issued to provide appointment to the petitioners on the ground that minimum 33 marks are not prescribed in the rules. Therefore, it was held, as follows: "In view of above fact, there is no substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, no direction can be issued to provide appointment to the petitioners on the ground that minimum 33 marks are not prescribed in the rules. Here in this case, the denial of appointment is not on the ground that the petitioners did not obtain minimum 33 marks but denial of appointment is on the ground that last appointment has been given to the candidate, who secured 33 marks. It is also worthwhile to observe that selection process was initiated in the year 2008 which has already been completed, therefore, at this stage, no case is made to issue any direction to the respondents. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed on this ground also." 5. Apart from this contention, it was also submitted that some of the petitioners had approached this Court earlier through yet another writ petition i.e. SBCWP No. 1945/2013, which was disposed of on 12/02/2013 giving them liberty to approach the department with a representation. That representation was disposed by a speaking order dated 19/11/2013. The petitioners claiming to be aggrieved preferred contempt proceedings (S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 815/2013) and that too was rejected and the contempt notice was discharged. The learned Advocate General who appeared for the State cited suppression of material facts and res judicata as the main ground to urge that the fresh round of litigation was barred, inasmuch as, the writ petitioners deliberately kept silent about the earlier proceedings and in view of this fact their petitions were dismissed. It was argued that the contention which found favour with the Single Judge that once the cut off marks decreased from 53% to 43% - OBC category candidates who secured 43% or more marks had to be "migrated to the open category" and in such an event, they cannot be considered against the post reserved for OBC category. It was argued on behalf of the State that this contention is utterly untenable. In the writ proceedings the reply clearly stated that 1590 posts advertised out of which, 813 posts were bifurcated for open category candidates and 333 posts were bifurcated for OBC category candidates. It was submitted that the last candidate in the open category was Meena Kumari Vyas who secured 53% marks. In the writ proceedings the reply clearly stated that 1590 posts advertised out of which, 813 posts were bifurcated for open category candidates and 333 posts were bifurcated for OBC category candidates. It was submitted that the last candidate in the open category was Meena Kumari Vyas who secured 53% marks. It was urged that after declaration of the merit list, the State realized that there were several eligible candidates with requisite teaching experience of 5 years but they were deprived from inclusion of their names in the select list as they were lower down in merit. To accommodate them, 33 more marks for Prabodhak posts were sanctioned for Bhilwara District which included 19 posts of General Category and 6 posts for OBC Category. It was stated that these posts were filled by the candidates with requisite experience who were working in the government projects. It was further stated that even after filling such posts, some candidates were deprived of selection and they in turn approached the court and were granted relief as a result of which, the Director had to sanction some more posts to accommodate them and comply with the court's order. These candidates, it is submitted were appointed on 06/12/2012 having regard to the merit list. 6. The State submits that the argument that the cut off had slipped below 53 marks is incorrect because the last candidate selected in open category against 1590 posts in fact secured 53% marks. As far as those who secured less marks (who were appointed) is concerned, the posts were created and appointments made, on account of court's directions. 7. In support of this contention, the State relied upon an additional affidavit explaining the circumstances in which additional number of individuals were appointed by virtue of pleadings filed in the review proceedings. In this regard, reliance is placed on a letter dated 28/02/2009 whereby 14 candidates were given appointment. These candidates were Para Teachers working in various government projects, who possessed the prescribed qualifications but could not be accommodated due to non-availability of posts. These individuals had approached the court in various writ petitions; consequent upon this, orders dated 08/02/2010 and 27/04/2011 were passed. 8. It is submitted that the State specifically pleaded in the review petitions, as follows:- "8. These individuals had approached the court in various writ petitions; consequent upon this, orders dated 08/02/2010 and 27/04/2011 were passed. 8. It is submitted that the State specifically pleaded in the review petitions, as follows:- "8. That as already submitted 43 vacancies other and above than the vacancies advertised that is 813 in Zila Parishad, Bhilwara have already filled in. Thus total 856 persons have been appointed in the General Category in the manner aforesaid. To be specific 20 persons out of the list of 28 candidates already submitted have been appointed on account of their merit being above the cutoff marks of 53, in General Category, 16 candidates (14+2) have been appointed in accordance with the various orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in pursuance to the newly created post by the Government itself. Similarly 7 have been appointed on account of Vishnu Kanwar's case. This takes the figure to 856 (813 + 20 + 16 + 7). 9. That as already submitted for OBC category as against the total posts advertised 333, 27 more appointments have been given i.e. upto 360 and the last male candidate is Phool Mohammed who has secured 33 marks. Thus, in total 360 candidates in OBC category have been appointed other than those 172 OBC category candidates who have been given appointment on account of their own merit by shifting them from OBC TO General. Thus, 532 OBC candidates selected. 172 OBC to General and 360 from OBC to OBC. A list of 360 candidates and 172 candidates are also being submitted herewith and marked as Annexure-MMA/5 collectively. 10. That certain persons were not covered by Annexure-MMA/4 nor covered by Annexure-MMA/2-A had also been selected and appointed who were having less than 53 marks. A list of all those candidates selected in General category is being submitted herewith and marked as Annexure-MAA/6. Since more persons from the size of the vacancies have been appointed. An amended merit list was prepared on 16.05.2011. However, since those appointed in the year of 2008/09 were sought to be removed as having secured less than the final merit of 53 marks. A litigation ensued rejecting into an order of this Hon'ble Court in pursuance to which more seats were created and as many as 43 more persons were accommodated beyond the size of the vacancy. However, since those appointed in the year of 2008/09 were sought to be removed as having secured less than the final merit of 53 marks. A litigation ensued rejecting into an order of this Hon'ble Court in pursuance to which more seats were created and as many as 43 more persons were accommodated beyond the size of the vacancy. This extra posts were from the candidates mentioned in Annexure-MAA/2, Annexure-MAA/2-A and Annexure-MAA/4 also. However, the matter of fact remains that upto the size of the vacancies of 813 for General category, the final cutoff was 53 includes 172 candidates who were migrated from OBC to General category. A copy of the order dated 06.09.2012 is being submitted herewith and marked as Annexure-MAA/7." 9. It is thus argued that the basis of the learned Single Judge's direction i.e. that the cut off marks (for appointment) was lowered to below 53% marks (the original cut off marks) for open category candidates is not correct; that increase in the number of posts was on account of some individuals being erroneously declared as ineligible which resulted in court's order and creation of further posts. The Advocate General argued that seeking to derive advantage of this, others approached the court contending that the cut off marks were less than 53% and had become 43%. 10. The learned Advocate General relied upon the previous order made by the Principal Seat at Jodhpur rejecting the present petitioners' contention on the ground that appointments had been completed and that the directions could not be issued. It was stated that without disclosing the filing or outcome of the earlier proceedings (SBCWP No. 7310/2010), the present petitioners could not have approached the court. The learned Advocate General further submitted that as against original 1590 posts advertised, the total number of posts were increased to 1671 (i.e. increase by 81 posts) including the OBC category which was increased to 362. He urged that there is no question of accommodation for present petitioners on the ground that cut off marks for OBC category candidates was 33% and there is no material on record that anyone possessing with less than 33% marks was appointed or that any OBC category candidate was allowed to migrate to the open category. 11. He urged that there is no question of accommodation for present petitioners on the ground that cut off marks for OBC category candidates was 33% and there is no material on record that anyone possessing with less than 33% marks was appointed or that any OBC category candidate was allowed to migrate to the open category. 11. The learned Advocate General submitted that the impugned orders would result in grave consequences and involve - after 10 years, a re-working of the entire select list resulting in migrating 561 candidates (to the open category), and termination of equal number of open category candidates despite the fact that the selection was completed and the appointments (made of the selected candidates) over 8-10 years ago. Relying upon the judgment in R.K. Sabharwal Vs. State of Punjab - (1995) 2 SCC 745 , it was submitted that the concept of migration undoubtedly applies and has to be given effect to where reserved category candidates have secured marks commensurate with the open category meritorious candidates. However no instruction or guidelines require the reserve category to be treated as a general category by re-opening finalized selections after appointments are made. It was stated that the process cannot be done again and no candidate who is less merited in the reserved category can assert as a matter of right after the life of a select list has expired and even the period of working of the wait list ends. 12. Counsel for the writ petitioners Mr. Kumawat urged that the original appeal against the main impugned order dated 17/12/2015 was withdrawn by the State although with liberty to seek review. Having not succeeded, and also having lost in the review proceedings, the State is now precluded from pursuing the appeal contending that it is aggrieved by the impugned order passed in the review petition. 13. Mr. Kumawat also relied upon the State position's and submitted that there was no dispute that the last open category candidate selected and appointed did not have 53% marks but had 43% marks. Counsel emphasized that the State has nowhere established that the appointments made pursuant to the court's orders or otherwise were wrong. He further relied upon an order issued by the State on 16/05/2013, with respect to the correct state of figures leading to appointments, which are subject-matters of the present case. 14. Mr. Counsel emphasized that the State has nowhere established that the appointments made pursuant to the court's orders or otherwise were wrong. He further relied upon an order issued by the State on 16/05/2013, with respect to the correct state of figures leading to appointments, which are subject-matters of the present case. 14. Mr. Kumawat submitted that there is no question of delay or res judicata because the facts which emerged after due consideration and which led the writ petitioners to approach this Court, were not within their knowledge. As a result, the State's argument that the entire material would require re-visiting, has no merit. Analysis and findings. 15. The preceding factual analysis would reveal that the State advertised the vacancies as far back as in May, 2008. The selection process ended sometime in 2009; the selection involved 1590 vacancies. The total vacancies advertised for being filled by general category candidates, was 813 (this was increased to 856 due to court orders). 333 vacancies were advertised for OBC candidates; ultimately, 27 additional posts were created and filled for this category due to courts' directions-the total tally being 360. Furthermore, the State affirmed that in addition to these 360, 172 OBC candidates were given the benefit of migration (to open category vacancies) due to their meritorious performance. Consequently, the select list finally operated by the State comprised 532 OBC candidates (out of 1671). Concededly, the last successful candidate - in the open category to be selected and appointed, had obtained 53% marks. It is not disputed by the writ petitioners that the cut off marks for OBC candidates - in the original process of selection - was 33%. It is also not in dispute that the three writ petitioners who approached this court in 2015 were OBC candidates; further they do not dispute that they had considerably lower marks in comparison with the last OBC candidate's marks-two of them had secured 21% and one of them had secured 27 marks. Furthermore, the record also reveal that the total number of candidates appointed was 1671; the State attributes this number to various orders of court, and does not admit that the reason was lowering of cut off percentage in the general category. Rather, its additional affidavit states that as against a total of 1590 advertised posts, 1671 were finally appointed. 16. Furthermore, the record also reveal that the total number of candidates appointed was 1671; the State attributes this number to various orders of court, and does not admit that the reason was lowering of cut off percentage in the general category. Rather, its additional affidavit states that as against a total of 1590 advertised posts, 1671 were finally appointed. 16. These facts, in the opinion of the court, clearly reveal that the process of selection and filling of vacancies had ended-by the time the writ petitioners approached the court in 2015 complaining that the last cut off marks in the open category candidates' list had slipped from below the original cut off marks of 53%. The writ petitioners did not provide any concrete evidence about how the cut off marks had dropped to 43% and who was the candidate selected and appointed that had secured 43%. Crucially, two of the writ petitioners - who approached this court, in 2015, had filed a writ petition earlier-before the principal seat at Jodhpur. That petition (SBCWP No. 7510/2010) was rejected on 15/01/2014. This fact has been concealed calculatedly from the court in the present, fresh proceedings. 17. An examination of the pleadings in the writ petition - as well as the State's review petition and its additional affidavit, discloses that the State had explained all the relevant facts and denied that the cut off marks had lowered, due to filling up of vacancies (which was the principal ground for the petitioners in this round of litigation). It had crucially, revealed that the process of migration or shifting of candidates from inter alia, the OBC to general category had resulted in 532 OBC candidates being appointed-as against the 333 advertised vacancies according to the original notification (which was increased to 360 due to court orders). Thus, 172 candidates had been shifted or "migrated" to the open category. Correspondingly, 172 OBC candidates who were lower in merit in the original list, were pushed up and secured appointed. With the appointment of the last of these candidates, the process ended. The rejection of SBCWP No. 7510/2010, on 15/01/2014 was precisely on this ground. Therefore, this court is of opinion that the learned Single Judge fell into error in directing the State to re-open the process and work out the merit position of the present writ petitions. 18. With the appointment of the last of these candidates, the process ended. The rejection of SBCWP No. 7510/2010, on 15/01/2014 was precisely on this ground. Therefore, this court is of opinion that the learned Single Judge fell into error in directing the State to re-open the process and work out the merit position of the present writ petitions. 18. What the petitioners seek essentially, is the re-opening of the entire process of selection, on tenuous arguments that a fresh list of OBC candidates, to draw a new select list, is necessitated because of lowering of the last cut off marks of open category candidates. As discussed previously the process of "migration" or shifting of OBC candidates in the present case, resulted in the inclusion of additional 172 OBC candidates in the select list. The actual number of OBC candidates swelled to 532, on the last count, as a result of creation and filling of 27 additional vacancies, and migration of 172 candidates to the general list. 19. The writ petition, in the opinion of this court, when filed in 2015, was entirely misconceived and the learned Single Judge fell into error in entertaining it. Selections were completed in 2009; appointments were made - and completed - soon after. In these circumstances, asking the State to revisit the entire process would result in upsetting a settled issue. The State points out-quite correctly, that this has major repercussions, inasmuch as a wholesale review of the select list (nothing short of which can be sufficient for compliance with the Single Judge's directions) and pushing down-even termination, of hundreds of candidates, who were appointed a decade ago and who have in all probability been confirmed, earned increments and progressed in their careers. 20. Even more fundamentally, the concept of migration-which the petitioners bank upon entirely in these proceedings, cannot be an endless affair. It is not by itself a source of recruitment. It is, rather, a method to ensure that a candidate claiming benefit of reservation, who secures a sufficiently high place on the merit list, is to be shifted to the open category, so as to accommodate another candidate of his category, claiming reservation, who possibly might not have made it to the select list. It is, rather, a method to ensure that a candidate claiming benefit of reservation, who secures a sufficiently high place on the merit list, is to be shifted to the open category, so as to accommodate another candidate of his category, claiming reservation, who possibly might not have made it to the select list. However, there is a finiteness to this procedure, as explained by the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India (UOI) v. Ramesh Ram & Ors. : (2010) 7 SCC 234 : "46. Reference was also made to R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab (1995) 2 SCC 745 , this Court had declared that the State shall not count a Reserved Category candidate selected in the open category against the vacancies in the Reserved Category. However, by this it could not be inferred that if the candidate himself wishes to avail a vacancy in the Reserved Category, he shall be prohibited from doing so. After considering the counsels' submissions and deliberations among ourselves, we are of the view that the ratio in that case is not applicable for the purpose of the present case. That case was primarily concerned with the Punjab Service of Engineers in the Irrigation Department of State of Punjab. The decision was rendered in the context of the posts earmarked for the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes on the roster. It was noted that once such posts are filled the reservation is complete. Roster cannot operate any further and it should be stopped. Any post falling vacant in a cadre thereafter, is to be filled from the category reserved or general due to retirement or removal of a person belonging to the respective category. Unlike the examinations conducted by UPSC which includes 21 different services this case pertains to a single service and therefore the same cannot be compared with the examination conducted by UPSC. The examination conducted by UPSC is very prestigious and the top-most services of this nation are included in this examination. In this respect, it is obvious that there is fierce competition amongst the successful candidates as well to secure appointments in the most preferred services. The examination conducted by UPSC is very prestigious and the top-most services of this nation are included in this examination. In this respect, it is obvious that there is fierce competition amongst the successful candidates as well to secure appointments in the most preferred services. This judgment is strictly confined to the enabling provision of Article 16(4) of the Constitution under which the State Government has the sole power to decide whether there is a requirement for reservations in favour of the backward class in the services under the State Government..." 21. The petitioners' contention, in effect, therefore, results in a demand for review of the select list, entirely based on a fresh round of "migration" in the select list, which had been finalized nearly a decade ago. Clearly, that is impermissible. The petitioners are also guilty of laches; also, those who had approached this court earlier and did not disclose this aspect clearly in their writ petitions are also guilty of concealment of material facts. All these factors disentitled them to relief. 22. In view of the foregoing analysis, and having regard to the fact that in the previous round of litigation, the court had categorically declined relief, this court is of the opinion that both the main impugned judgment and the order in review (which is also under challenge) cannot be sustained. The impugned judgment and orders are hereby set aside; the State's appeals (DB Special Appeal Writ Nos. 67-69/2019) succeed and are allowed. All pending applications are disposed of.