ORDER : These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners questioning the result dated 08.05.2020 issued by the respondent-Rajasthan Public Service Commission (in short ‘the RPSC’) for the post of Junior Legal Officer (in short ‘JLO’). 2. Since the issues raised in all these writ petitions are common, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petitions are decided at this stage by the present common order. 3. This Court treats S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6657/2020 [Vijendra Singh Dudi & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Anr.] as a lead case and for the purpose of adjudication of the present dispute, facts are taken from the said petition. 4. The facts, pleaded in nutshell, are that an advertisement dated 19.09.2019 was issued by the RPSC inviting application for the post of JLO. The petitioners feeling themselves fully eligible, filled in the application form and they appeared in the written examination conducted on 26.12.2019 and 27.12.2019. The respondent-RPSC declared the result on 08.05.2020 of the candidates who were selected for interview and further the respondent-RPSC decided to hold interviews, as per the press note dated 23.06.2020. 5. The petitioners have pleaded that in the result declared on 08.05.2020, they were not selected for interview and marks of the petitioners were less than the cut-off marks fixed in their respective categories. 6. The petitioners have alleged in the petition that the result was declared of the selected candidates in an arbitrary manner without giving benefit to the reserved category candidates like the petitioners and the same fact is evident from the cut-off marks of TSP-ST category, as their cut-off was higher than the cut-off of TSP-General category. 7. The petitioners have further pleaded that the respondent- RPSC did not apply the reservation policy in a proper manner and in an arbitrary manner did not shift the candidates belonging to a particular reserved category to General category, who secured more marks than the cut-off fixed for General category. 8. The petitioners have pleaded that the respondent-RPSC has created inequality by treating vertical reservation in the same manner as horizontal reservation. 8. The petitioners have pleaded that the respondent-RPSC has created inequality by treating vertical reservation in the same manner as horizontal reservation. The allegation in the petition is that the arbitrary act of the respondent-RPSC by treating different classes of reservation on the same footing, has resulted in high merit of reserved category, which ought to have been less if the respondent-RPSC had shifted the toppers of a particular reserved category, who were high in order of merit than the cut-off fixed for the General category. 9. The allegation of the petitioners, in the writ petition, is that the arbitrary act of the respondent-RPSC has resulted into creating two classes by treating unreserved category as reserved category and as such, the same is violative of the basic structure of the Constitution of India. 10. The petitioners have further alleged in the petition that according to the scheme of examination, the written examination is not a qualifying examination but the marks of the written examination are added in the recruitment process. 11. The legal grounds, raised in the writ petition, and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners are as follows:- 11A. The respondent-RPSC has created inequality by treating vertical reservation in the same manner as horizontal reservation. 11B. The respondent-RPSC has not adopted the correct method of scheme of reservation. 11C. The respondent-RPSC has not declared the result of the main examination category-wise and as such, the right of the petitioners is affected to participate in the selection process. 12. The respondent-RPSC had initially filed reply but there was some typographical error and as such, the amended reply, filed by the RPSC, was taken on record by the order of this Court dated 25.01.2021. 13. The respondent-RPSC has pleaded that they had issued advertisement dated 19.09.2019 for 156 posts of JLO out of which 145 posts were advertised for Non-TSP area and 11 for TSP area and in pursuance of the said advertisement dated 19.09.2019, the RPSC has received 30940 applications from different candidates. 14. The respondent-RPSC, after conducting examination on 26.12.2019 & 27.12.2019, declared the result of the written examination on 08.05.2020 and the candidates were declared provisionally successful for interview, subject to verification of their documents. The provisional result dated 08.05.2020, against the advertised posts, the candidates were declared eligible in the ratio of 1:3 in their respective category. 15. 14. The respondent-RPSC, after conducting examination on 26.12.2019 & 27.12.2019, declared the result of the written examination on 08.05.2020 and the candidates were declared provisionally successful for interview, subject to verification of their documents. The provisional result dated 08.05.2020, against the advertised posts, the candidates were declared eligible in the ratio of 1:3 in their respective category. 15. The respondent-RPSC has averred that all the petitioners belong to BC category and cut-off marks of BC category were declared as 150.56 whereas all the four petitioners have obtained 149.20, 147.28, 149.10 and 147.90 respectively and these marks were less than the cut-off marks, therefore, the petitioners were not called for interview. 16. The respondent-RPSC has further averred that the contention of the petitioners that by the result dated 08.05.2020, the RPSC had fixed the cut-off marks of TSP-ST category, higher than the cut-off marks of General category, was having no relevance with the recruitment of Non-TSP category candidates because in the advertisement for the Non-TSP area and TSP area, the posts were separately advertised. The advertisement had made it clear that against the TSP post only TSP area candidate can apply but TSP area candidate can also apply for Non-TSP area post but they were required to submit preferences about TSP and Non-TSP posts. 17. The respondent-RPSC has further averred that in the result dated 08.05.2020, 23 candidates were declared successful for TSP area and 435 candidates were declared successful for Non-TSP area and the process adopted by RPSC was to first prepare the merit of TSP area considering the preference of the candidates and thereafter merit of Non-TSP was to be prepared and those candidates who did not obtain the cut-off marks in TSP area, such candidates found place in the cut-off of Non-TSP area and if they had applied for both the posts i.e. TSP and Non-TSP, the case was accordingly to be considered. 18. The respondent-RPSC has further averred that as per the advertisement and Rules, a candidate was required to possess 40% marks in each of the papers i.e. paper-i, ii, iii & iv and the RPSC, after considering all the aspects, declared the cut-off marks for TSP area as well as Non-TSP area. 18. The respondent-RPSC has further averred that as per the advertisement and Rules, a candidate was required to possess 40% marks in each of the papers i.e. paper-i, ii, iii & iv and the RPSC, after considering all the aspects, declared the cut-off marks for TSP area as well as Non-TSP area. The table, provided by the respondent-RSPC in their reply, depicting the cut-off marks of TSP area and Non-TSP area, is reproduced as under:- Cut off Marks (TSP Area) CTG Posts Qualifying Ratio 1:3 Total selected candidates Cutoff marks Remarks TSP-Gen Gen 05 15 21 97.60 Grace marks to 4 candidates Fem 02 06 TSP-ST Gen 03 09 02 106.40 Grace Marks to 1 Fem 01 03 Total 11 33 23 10S.F. (Non-TSP Area) 110.81 CTG Posts Qualifying Ratio 1:3 Total selected candidates Cutoff marks Remarks Gen Gen 38 114 147 02 WD 10 DV 154.25 Fem 11 33 WD 04 12 95.75 129.53 DV 01 03 03 155.41 ST Gen 12 36 51 117.33 Fem 04 12 WD 01 03 NA NA OBC Gen 21 63 84 150.56 Fem 07 21 WD 02 06 01 WD 05 DV 159.03 110.81 19. The respondent-RPSC has averred in the reply that the cutoff marks of OBC-General was declared as 150.56 whereas the cut-off of General was fixed as 154.25 and as such there was no occasion to migrate the candidate of OBC category to Open category because the cut-off of OBC category was lesser than the Open category. 20. The respondent-RPSC has averred that the writ petitions do not raise any legal issue and as such, the same are required to be declared frivolous and without substance. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of their submissions, have placed reliance on the following cases:- (i) UP Power Corporation Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Nitin Kumar & 9 Ors. D.B. Special Appeal No.310/2015 passed by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court. (ii) Rakesh Kumar Daria Vs. RPSC & Ors. Appeal (Civil) No.3132/2007 passed by the Apex Court. (iii) Pradeep Singh Dehai Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Civil Appeal No.7211/2019 passed by the Apex Court. (iv) Manju Dudi Vs. RPSC & Anr. passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13777/2016 on 22.11.2016. (v) RPSC Vs.Naresh Sharma & Ors. passed by the Division Bench in Civil Special Appeal No.886/2005. (vi) Sheikh Modh. Afzal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Civil Appeal No.7211/2019 passed by the Apex Court. (iv) Manju Dudi Vs. RPSC & Anr. passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13777/2016 on 22.11.2016. (v) RPSC Vs.Naresh Sharma & Ors. passed by the Division Bench in Civil Special Appeal No.886/2005. (vi) Sheikh Modh. Afzal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in [ AIR 2008 Raj. 21 ] (vii) Abhishek Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2016 (9) ADJ 164 . 22. This Court finds that by the interim orders dated 27.01.2021 and 16.02.2021 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6657/2020 and S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1901/2021, the petitioners were allowed to participate in the interview for the post of JLO and the result was not to be declared of any person. 23. Learned counsel for the respondent-RPSC Mr.M.F.Baig, on the other hand, submitted that the scheme of Rules i.e. the Rajasthan Legal (State and Subordinate) Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter shall be referred to as “the Rules of 1981”) provides that in what manner the examination is to be conducted and if the candidates obtain minimum qualifying marks in the written examination, as fixed by the Commission in their discretion, such candidates are summoned by them for interview, which carries 25% marks. 24. Learned counsel further submitted that the Commission has been given discretion also to award grace marks upto one in each paper and upto three in aggregate and further power is given to the Commission to fix the minimum qualifying marks in the written examination for the SC and ST candidates, lower than what is prescribed for other candidates. 25. Mr.M.F.Baig, learned counsel for the respondent-RPSC submitted that Rule 23 of the Rules of 1981 is para-materia with Rule 15 of the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter shall be referred to as “the Rules of 1999”). Counsel submitted that Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999, in RAS and Allied Services Examinations, has been interpreted by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.103/2021 [State of Raj. & Anr. Vs. Kavita Godara & Ors.] and other connected Special Appeals vide order dated 02.03.2021. 26. Counsel submitted that Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999, in RAS and Allied Services Examinations, has been interpreted by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.103/2021 [State of Raj. & Anr. Vs. Kavita Godara & Ors.] and other connected Special Appeals vide order dated 02.03.2021. 26. Learned Counsel submitted that the decision of the Commission to call the candidates in the ratio of 1:3, is based on sound principles and further the persons who have been summoned, for the purpose of interview, are required to have the requisite merit position, by taking into account the written examination as well as the marks of interview. Counsel further submitted that the respondent-RPSC has been following the practice of calling the candidates, for the purpose of interview, in the ratio of 1:3 since 2005 and the consistent practice which does not affect the right of any candidate, is required to be followed and the same has been approved by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kavita Godara (supra). 27. Learned Counsel Mr.M.F.Baig further submitted that the petitioners have not shown to this Court as in what manner their right has been affected if they are not able to obtain the minimum cut-off marks in the category, in which they had applied. 28. Learned counsel for the respondent-RPSC Mr.M.F.Baig, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance on the following cases:- (i) The State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Kavita Godara & Ors. and other connected appeals passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.103/2021 dated 02.03.2021. (ii) A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Baloji Badhavath & Ors. passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2244/2009. (iii) Jitendra Kumar Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2010(3) SCC 119 . (iv) Chattar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 1996(11) SCC 742 . 29. I have heard rival submissions made at Bar by the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material available on record. 30. This Court before proceeding further in the matter, deems it appropriate to quote Rule 23 of the Rules of 1981, as follows:- “23. reported in 1996(11) SCC 742 . 29. I have heard rival submissions made at Bar by the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material available on record. 30. This Court before proceeding further in the matter, deems it appropriate to quote Rule 23 of the Rules of 1981, as follows:- “23. Viva-voice:- Candidates who obtain such minimum qualifying marks in the written examination as may be fixed by the Commission in their discretion shall be summoned by them for an interview for a personality test which shall carry 25 marks. The Commission may in its discretion award grace marks upto one in each paper and upto three in the aggregate. The Commission may fix minimum qualifying marks in the written examination for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes candidates lower than what is prescribed for other candidates. The minimum qualifying marks in Viva-Voce shall be 35% for candidates other than those belonging to the Schedule Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and for the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes it shall be 25%. The marks so awarded shall be added to the marks obtained in the written test by each candidate. The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes candidates shall be paid both ways actual railway fare of the lowest class by passenger train beyond 80 Kilometers-in accordance with the orders of the Government to appear at the Viva- Voce test. Other candidates shall appear in the Viva-Voce test at their own expense.” 31. The bare perusal of the aforesaid Rule makes it clear that the candidates who obtain such minimum qualifying marks in the written examination, as may be fixed by the Commission in their discretion, are summoned for interview for a personality test which will carry 25 marks. The advertisement further shows that a candidate is required to pass in each paper with 40% marks. The advertisement further shows that a candidate is required to pass in each paper with 40% marks. The relevant clause of the advertisement is quoted hereunder, for ready reference:- vU; fooj.k p;u izfØ;k vH;fFkZ;ksa dk p;u izfr;ksxh ijh{kk ,oa lk{kkRdkj ds ek/;e ls fd;k tk;sxkA ijh{kk frfFk dh ?kks"k.kk ;Fkk le; dj nh tk,xhA ijh{kk ;kstuk o ikB~Øe ;g ijh{kk oLrqfu"B fyf[kr o lk{kkRdkj ds :i esa yh tk;sxhA lHkh iz'u oLrqfu"B izdkj ds gksaxsA prqFkZ iz'ui= dk foLr`r ikB~;Øe vk;ksx dh osclkbZV ij 'kh?kz gh tkjh dj fn;k tk,xkA vU; fooj.k fuEukuqlkj gSa& Paper Subject Marks I Constitution of India with special emphasis on Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and enforcement of rights through writs, Functioning of High Court and Supreme Court and Attorney General. 50 II Civil Procedure Code and Criminal Procedure Code, Provisions required to be referred generally in Government Office will be given importance. 50 III Evidence Act, Limitation Act, Interpretation of Statutes, drafting and conveyancing. 50 IV Language:- Part-A General Hindi 25 25 Part-B General English 25 25 Note: (i) Each Paper shall be of 3 hours duration. (ii) Pass marks shall be 40% in each paper. (iii) All papers except language paper unless specifically required shall be answered either in Hindi or in English, but no candidate shall be permitted to answer anyone paper partly in English unless specifically allowed to do so. (iv) The standard of the language paper will be that of senior secondary level. Viva-voice : Candidates who obtain such minimum qualifying marks in the written examination as may be fixed by the Commission in their discretion shall be summoned by them for an interview for a personality test, which shall carry 25 marks. The Commission may in its discretion award grace marks upto 1 in each paper and upto 3 in the aggregate. The Commission may fix minimum qualifying marks in the written examination for the scheduled caste and the scheduled tribe candidates lower than what is prescribed for other candidates. The marks so awarded shall be added to the marks obtained in the written test by each candidate. 32. A perusal of the advertisement also makes it clear that a candidate who obtained minimum qualifying marks in the written examination, as may be fixed by the Commission in their discretion, shall be summoned for the purpose of interview which will carry 25 marks. 33. 32. A perusal of the advertisement also makes it clear that a candidate who obtained minimum qualifying marks in the written examination, as may be fixed by the Commission in their discretion, shall be summoned for the purpose of interview which will carry 25 marks. 33. This Court, on perusal of the result declared by the RPSC, finds that different cut-off marks have been declared for the candidates belonging to different categories i.e. TSP area and Non- TSP area in General, EWS, SC, ST, OBC & MBC categories. A perusal of the cut-off marks shows that the candidate belonging to General category should have minimum 154.25 cut-off marks and candidate belonging to OBC category should have minimum 150.56 cut-off marks. 34. This Court finds that if the cut-off marks of each categories i.e. EWS, SC, ST, OBC & MBC is lower than the cut-off marks for General category, then no inference can be drawn that the candidates belonging to the reserved category, will suffer on account of their non-participation. 35. This Court further finds that after the result of written examination has been declared by the respondent-RPSC, they have decided to call the candidates in the ratio of 1:3 in the respective categories and the merit will be finally prepared of the candidates by taking into account their marks obtained in written examination and interview and the same will not take away the right of any candidate who secured marks, as per the merit prepared by the RPSC. 36. This Court finds that if the candidates, belonging to reserved category, in respect of reservation provided to them, secure higher merit than the candidates belonging to General category, such candidates are counted against open category and accordingly the benefit is extended to the reserved category candidates in their respective categories. 37. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that since the petitioners belong to OBC category and due to declaration of result, their rights have been affected, suffice it to say by this Court that the petitioners have failed to even obtain the minimum qualifying marks/cut-off marks in their respective categories and which is lower than the Open category, no right vested in the petitioners is taken away by the exercise, which is conducted by the RPSC. 38. 38. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent-RPSC have mixed or in a way violated the concept of horizontal and vertical reservations, suffice it to say by this Court that as far as vertical reservation is concerned, the same is given to the candidates belonging to SC, ST, OBC, etc. in their respective categories. 39. The issue of vertical and horizontal reservation has been extensively dealt with by the Apex Court in the case of Saurav Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Ors. reported in AIR 2021 SC 233 and the relevant portions of the judgment are reproduced hereunder:- “30. The decision of this Court in Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal vs. Mamta Bisht was also completely misunderstood. In that case one Neetu Joshi had secured a seat in General Category on her own merit and she also answered the category of horizontal reservation earmarked for “Uttaranchal Mahila”. The attempt on part of Mamta Bisht, the original writ petitioner, was to submit that said Neetu Joshi having been appointed on her own merit in General Category, the seat meant for “Uttaranchal Mahila” category had to be filled up by other candidates. In essence, what was projected was the same stand taken by the respondents in Rajesh Kumar Daria, which was expressly rejected in that case. It is for this reason that para 15 of the decision in Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal vs. Mamta Bisht expressly returned a finding that the judgment rendered by the High Court in accepting the claim of Mamta Bisht was not in consonance with law laid down in Rajesh Kumar Daria and the appeal was allowed. This decision is thus not of any help or assistance in support of the second view. 31. The second view is thus neither based on any authoritative pronouncement by this Court nor does it lead to a situation where the merit is given precedence. Subject to any permissible reservations i.e. either Social (Vertical) or Special (Horizontal), opportunities to public employment and selection of candidates must purely be based on merit. Any selection which results in candidates getting selected against Open/General category with less merit than the other available candidates will certainly be opposed to principles of equality. Subject to any permissible reservations i.e. either Social (Vertical) or Special (Horizontal), opportunities to public employment and selection of candidates must purely be based on merit. Any selection which results in candidates getting selected against Open/General category with less merit than the other available candidates will certainly be opposed to principles of equality. There can be special dispensation when it comes to candidates being considered against seats or quota meant for reserved categories and in theory it is possible that a more meritorious candidate coming from Open/General category may not get selected. But the converse can never be true and will be opposed to the very basic principles which have all the while been accepted by this Court. Any view or process of interpretation which will lead to incongruity as highlighted earlier, must be rejected. 32. The second view will thus not only lead to irrational results where more meritorious candidates may possibly get sidelined as indicated above but will, of necessity, result in acceptance of a postulate that Open/General seats are reserved for candidates other than those coming from vertical reservation categories. Such view will be completely opposed to the long line of decisions of this Court. 33. We, therefore, do not approve the second view and reject it. The first view which weighed with the High Courts of Rajasthan, Bombay, Uttarakhand and Gujarat is correct and rational. 34 & 35. XX XX XX XX 36. Finally, we must say that the steps indicated by the High Court of Gujarat in para 56 of its judgment in Tamannaben Ashokbhai Desai contemplate the correct and appropriate procedure for considering and giving effect to both vertical and horizontal reservations. The illustration given by us deals with only one possible dimension. There could be multiple such possibilities. Even going by the present illustration, the first female candidate allocated in the vertical column for Scheduled Tribes may have secured higher position than the candidate at Serial No.64. In that event said candidate must be shifted from the category of Scheduled Tribes to Open / General category causing a resultant vacancy in the vertical column of Scheduled Tribes. Such vacancy must then ensure to the benefit of the candidate in the Waiting List for Scheduled Tribes – Female. The steps indicated by Gujarat High Court will take care of every such possibility. Such vacancy must then ensure to the benefit of the candidate in the Waiting List for Scheduled Tribes – Female. The steps indicated by Gujarat High Court will take care of every such possibility. It is true that the exercise of laying down a procedure must necessarily be left to the concerned authorities but we may observe that one set out in said judgment will certainly satisfy all claims and will not lead to any incongruity as highlighted by us in the preceding paragraphs. 37 to 46. XX XX XX XX PER HON’BLE MR.S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J: 47. The controversy that arises in the present round of litigation is the correct method of filling the quota reserved for women candidates (“horizontal quota”). It is the complaint of the applicants, who are largely women, belonging to the Other Backward Class categories, that the state has not correctly applied the rule of reservation, and denied such OBC women candidates the benefit of “migration”, i.e. adjustment in the general category vacancies. 48. The U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex- Servicemen) Act, 1993 (hereafter “the 1993 Act”) provided for reservations to persons with disability, ex-servicemen and dependents of freedom fighters. The U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 is the comprehensive law, enacted by the state of UP providing for reservation for social categories (SC/ST/OBCs). The provisions of the 1993 Act (for persons with disabilities, ex-servicemen and dependents of freedom fighters [“DFF” hereafter”]) clearly stated by Section 3 (3) that “(3) The persons selected against the vacancies reserved under subsection (1) shall be placed in the appropriate categories to which they belong. For example, if a selected person belongs to Scheduled Castes category he will be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustments; if he belongs to Scheduled Tribes category, he will be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustments; if he belongs to Other Backward Class of Citizens, category, he will be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustments. Similarly. if he belongs to open competition category, he will be placed in that category by making necessary adjustments.” It is thus apparent that the reservations under the 1993 Act were “horizontal” in nature. 49. Similarly. if he belongs to open competition category, he will be placed in that category by making necessary adjustments.” It is thus apparent that the reservations under the 1993 Act were “horizontal” in nature. 49. The quota provided for women, as well as dependents of freedom fighters (DFF) and ex-servicemen, in the present case are characterized as ‘horizontal’ whereas the quotas for social groups (SCs, STs, OBCs) are characterized as ‘vertical’. The coining of this differential terminology is underscored by the fact that the latter is sanctioned explicitly in Article 16(4), whereas the former is evolved through a process of permissible classification (Articles 14, 16(1)), although such horizontal reservations have been located additionally in Article 15(3). 50 to 52. XX XX XX XX 53. The features of vertical reservations are: (i) They cannot be filled by the open category, or categories of candidates other than those specified and have to be filled by candidates of the concerned social category only (SC/ST/OBC); (ii) Mobility (‘migration’) from the reserved (specified category) to the unreserved (open category) slot is possible, based on meritorious performance; (iii) In case of migration from reserved to open category, the vacancy in the reserved category should be filled by another person from the same specified category, lower in rank, (iv) If the vacancies cannot be filled by the specified categories due to shortfall of candidates, the vacancies are to be ‘carried forward’ or dealt with appropriately by rules. 54. Horizontal reservations on the other hand, by their nature, are not inviolate pools or carved in stone. They are premised on their overlaps and are ‘interlocking’ reservations. As a sequel, they are to be calculated concurrently and along with the inviolate ‘vertical’ (or “social”) reservation quotas, by application of the various steps laid out with clarity in paragraph 11 of Justice Lalit’s judgment. They cannot be carried forward. The first rule that applies to filling horizontal reservation quotas is one of adjustment, i.e. examining whether on merit any of the horizontal categories are adjusted in the merit list in the open category, and then, in the quota for such horizontal category within the particular specified/social reservation. 55. The open category is not a ‘quota’, but rather available to all women and men alike. Similarly, as held in Rajesh Kumar Daria, there is no quota for men. 55. The open category is not a ‘quota’, but rather available to all women and men alike. Similarly, as held in Rajesh Kumar Daria, there is no quota for men. If we are to accept the second view [as held by the Allahabad High Court in Ajay Kumar v. State of UP and the Madhya Pradesh High Court in State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Uday Sisode & Ors, referred to in paragraph 20 of Justice Lalit’s judgment], the result would be confining the number of women candidates, irrespective of their performance, in their social reservation categories and therefore, destructive of logic and merit. The second view, therefore – perhaps unconsciously supportsbut definitely results in confining the number of women in the select list to the overall numerical quota assured by the rule. 56 & 57. XX XX XX XX XX 58. In view of these clear decisions, it is too late in the day for the respondent state to contend that women candidates who are entitled to benefit of social category reservations, cannot fill open category vacancies. The said view is starkly exposed as misconceived, because it would result in such women candidates with less merit (in the open category) being selected, and those with more merit than such selected candidates, (in the social/vertical reservation category) being left out of selection. 59. I would conclude by saying that reservations, both vertical and horizontal, are method of ensuring representation in public services. These are not to be seen as rigid “slots”, where a candidate’s merit, which otherwise entitles her to be shown in the open general category, is foreclosed, as the consequence would be, if the state’s argument is accepted. Doing so, would result in a communal reservation, where each social category is confined within the extent of their reservation, thus negating merit. The open category is open to all, and the only condition for a candidate to be shown in it is merit, regardless of whether reservation benefit of either type is available to her or him.” 40. Doing so, would result in a communal reservation, where each social category is confined within the extent of their reservation, thus negating merit. The open category is open to all, and the only condition for a candidate to be shown in it is merit, regardless of whether reservation benefit of either type is available to her or him.” 40. The submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners that the RPSC has not considered the difference, which is created due to cut-off marks declared for TSP area and Non-TSP area, suffice it to say that separate posts were earmarked for TSP area and Non- TSP area and those candidates who had applied for TSP area, their cut-off marks have been declared separately and if the cut-off marks for TSP area-General is 97.60, which is lower than the cutoff marks for General candidate in Non-TSP area i.e. 154.25, no comparison can be made between these two categories. The RPSC was absolutely justified in preparing separate cut-off marks for TSP area and Non-TSP area. 41. The allegation of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent-RPSC has not considered the important issue of calling the candidates only by the order of their merit and not by virtue of their particular category, this Court finds that once reservation has been provided in the advertisement for different categories i.e. EWS, SC, ST, OBC & MBC, the respondent-RPSC was bound to declare the result/cut-off marks category-wise for which vertical reservation was provided. This Court further finds that horizontal reservation has also been provided in the result and the benefit of such horizontal reservation is given to the candidates in their respective category of EWS, SC, ST, OBC & MBC. 42. This Court finds that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kavita Godara (supra) has clearly laid down the principle that it is the discretion of the recruiting agency – RPSC as in what manner the candidates are to be called for the purpose of interview. The ratio of the candidates which is allowed by the Apex Court as well as by the High Court has been upto 1.5 times of the advertised posts and in the present case, the respondent-RPSC has called the candidates in the ration of 1:3. 43. The ratio of the candidates which is allowed by the Apex Court as well as by the High Court has been upto 1.5 times of the advertised posts and in the present case, the respondent-RPSC has called the candidates in the ration of 1:3. 43. This Court deems it proper to quote the relevant paragraphs of the order passed by the Division Bench in the case of Kavita Godara (supra), as follows:- “So far as present appeals are concerned, the controversy involved is only with regard to the candidates, who have been called for interview after they had qualified the main examination. As per Rules of 1999, the number of candidates liable to be admitted to the main examination would be 15 times the total approximate number of vacancies category wise to be filled in the year for various services and posts. Thus, it can be said that emphasis was made to fill up the vacancies categorywise. In these circumstances, there is force in the argument raised by learned Advocate General that for interview also, the candidates were required to be called categorywise as per the discretion exercised by the Commission. It is also the case of the appellants that for all the examinations conducted till date for filling up various services and posts in terms of the Rules of 1962 as well as the Rules of 1999, the practice followed by the Commission was that for interview, the number of candidates, who had qualified the main examination had been fixed categorywise. Learned counsel for the respondents have failed to demonstrate that the submission made by learned Advocate General with regard to past practice adopted by the Commission was incorrect. Rather, it has been submitted by Mr. Vigyan Shah, learned counsel for some of the respondents that a wrong practice cannot be said to be legal and valid. However, in view of the fact that the Commission has been consistently following the practice of calling the candidates for interview, who had qualified the main examination, by fixing their number categorywise and it is not a case where the said action is hit by mala fide or any ulterior motive, the action of the appellants in fixing the number of candidates to appear for interview after qualifying the main examination categorywise is legally justified and cannot be said to be in violation of relevant rules. Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999,when read as a whole, justifies the action of the appellants in calling the candidates categorywise for interview, after they had qualified main examination, to fill up the vacancies. Moreover, learned counsel for the respondents has failed to establish that any candidate lower in merit has been called for the interview. Hence, it cannot be said that merit has been compromised by adoption of the procedure of calling the candidates categorywise (who have qualified main examination) for interview. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents has failed to establish any prejudice suffered by his clients. So far as the fixation of calling of number of the candidates for interview after qualifying the main examination is concerned, the rule as such does not specifically provide as to whether the number of candidates are to be called categorywise vis-à-vis the number of posts or the candidates are to be called from a common list. In this situation, the practice adopted by the Commission was one of the possible method for calling the successful candidates for interview. The construction of the rule made by the Commission had been followed over a long period of time and the past practice is based on one of the possible construction of the rules and there is no justification for upsetting the said past practice, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Suresh Nathan & Another (supra).Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the action of the appellants in calling the successful candidates for interview by fixing their number categorywise cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified. Merely because hardship (if any) has been caused to some of the candidates with regard to the criteria fixed by the Commission is no ground to hold that the action of the appellants was illegal. Whenever selection for any post is made, some hardship is liable to be suffered by some of the candidates for one reason or the other. For example, some of the candidates cannot apply, as they become overage or they had not acquired the qualification up to the date fixed in the advertisement etc. Whenever selection for any post is made, some hardship is liable to be suffered by some of the candidates for one reason or the other. For example, some of the candidates cannot apply, as they become overage or they had not acquired the qualification up to the date fixed in the advertisement etc. Thus, the case of hardship is likely to arise in working of any rule, but in the present case, the Commission has fixed the criteria in its wisdom with a view to select the best candidates from all categories. The next question that requires consideration is as to whether the decision of the Commission in calling 1.5 times of the candidates in the present selection for interview out of the candidates, who had qualified the main examination, is justified. In this regard, the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav & Others(supra) is the most relevant one. In the said case, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the number of candidates to be called for interview in order of marks obtained in the written examination should not exceed twice or at the highest thrice the number of vacancies to be filled. We are not convinced by the argument raised by Mr. R.N. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel that the said finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav & Others (supra) is obiter dicta. In the present case admittedly, the Commission had called successful candidates 1.5 times of the number of vacancies to be filled for interview. By doing so as per Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999, in-fact, the number of candidates, who were called for interview, came upto 1.92 times. Thus, the number of candidates called by the Commission for interview came to about twice the number of vacancies to be filled. There is nothing on record to suggest that the decision taken by the Commission in calling candidates equal to 1.5 times of the number of vacancies to be filled was on account of any mala fide or oblique motive. There is also nothing on record to further suggest that the such number has been fixed to help any particular category of candidates or to put a particular category of candidates at a disadvantage. There is also nothing on record to further suggest that the such number has been fixed to help any particular category of candidates or to put a particular category of candidates at a disadvantage. The Commission, in its wisdom, felt that the right course to follow in the present case would be to call candidates equal to 1.5 times of the number of vacancies to be filled. In doing so, the number of candidates, which were sought to be called for interview, now comes to 1.92 times, which is almost twice the number of vacancies to be filled. Moreover, this Court would not exercise the power of judicial review, while exercising writ jurisdiction over an administrative decision in case the said decision does not suffer from an error, which is self evident on the face of it or if the decision is clouded by mala fide or some oblique motive. The Commission in its wisdom has thought that by calling categorywise candidates equal to 1.5 times of the number of vacancies to be filled, for interview would enable it to fill up the advertised vacancies by getting the best talent. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge fell in error in directing the appellants to lay down common minimum qualifying marks for all categories of candidates in such a manner so as to call at least two times the number of candidates against the total advertised posts and conduct interviews accordingly. It was not in the domain of this Court to have fixed the number of candidates required to be called for interview, as such number was required to be fixed by the Commission while exercising its administrative powers. The Commission, while fixing up the number of candidates required to be called for interview, had to take in account various factors such as the number of days required to interview all the candidates etc. It has been argued by learned Advocate General that in case the candidates twice the number of vacancies are ordered to be called for interview, then, in-fact, the number of candidates required to be called would be 2.5 times of the number of vacancies. It has been argued by learned Advocate General that in case the candidates twice the number of vacancies are ordered to be called for interview, then, in-fact, the number of candidates required to be called would be 2.5 times of the number of vacancies. Learned Advocate General has submitted that about 2010 candidates were required to be called for interview and in case the directions of the learned Single Judge are to be followed, then 700 more candidates would be required to be called for interview. It has been submitted by learned Advocate General that there was no requirement of calling more candidates, as the best talent would be picked up if the criteria adopted by the Commission is followed for filling up the vacancies. Hence, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has erred in allowing the writ petitions filed by the respondents, whereas, the writ petitions filed by the respondents deserve dismissal. Accordingly, appeals filed by the State are allowed. Consequently, order dated 17.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and writ petitions filed by the respondents are dismissed.” 44. This Court further finds that the respondent-RPSC has been following the same practice of calling the candidates for interview in the ratio of 1:3 since 2005 and this long consistent practice of calling the candidates for interview in the ratio of 1:3 is in consonance with the relevant Rules and the same does not make the action of the RPSC vulnerable in the eyes of law. 45. This Court finds that the petitioners have admittedly secured less than the cut-off marks in their respective categories and as such, they cannot be permitted to allege that the result prepared by the respondent-RPSC, is wrong or irrational from any point of view. 46. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed as having no force. Interim orders passed by the Court are also vacated. No costs.