ORDER : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the preliminary test result (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) declared with respect to Jharkhand Combined Assistant Engineer Direct Recruitment Examination being Advertisement No. 05/2019 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) conducted by the respondent no. 3 – Jharkhand Public Service Commission on 19.01.2020 since benefit of reservation has been extended in the said preliminary test result which is not permissible in the eyes of law as there is no State policy to extend such reservation at the stage of preliminary test and is also contrary to the terms of advertisement, applicable rules and various judicial pronouncements made on the said issue. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent-JPSC to publish a fresh revised result of the aforesaid preliminary test strictly in terms with advertisement, applicable rules and the State Policy. The petitioners have also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to consider their case so far as the preliminary test is concerned, as the respondent-Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) has deviated from the terms of advertisement, applicable rules and the State policy due to which the petitioners have been seriously prejudiced as they could not qualify for the mains examination. 2. Brief background of the case is that Advertisement No. 05/2019 was notified and uploaded in the website of the JPSC in month of October, 2019 inviting applications from eligible candidates for Combined Assistant Engineer Direct Recruitment Competitive Examination to be conducted for filing up the posts of Assistant Engineer – (Civil-542 posts) and (Mechanical-95 posts) – Total 637 posts in Road Construction Department, Water Resources Department and Drinking Water & Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioners filled up the forms under unreserved category for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) and appeared in the Preliminary Test held on 19.01.2020. The result of Preliminary Test was published on 14.08.2020 in the website of JPSC, however, the petitioners were declared unsuccessful in the same. 3. Mr. Amritansh Vats, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that while publishing the preliminary test result, the respondent-JPSC has extended the benefit of reservation due to which considerable number of reserved category candidates who have obtained marks at par with the cut off marks of unreserved category, their candidature have been placed under unreserved category. 3. Mr. Amritansh Vats, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that while publishing the preliminary test result, the respondent-JPSC has extended the benefit of reservation due to which considerable number of reserved category candidates who have obtained marks at par with the cut off marks of unreserved category, their candidature have been placed under unreserved category. It is further submitted that separate and different cut-off marks for male and female of EWS Category have been fixed which is nowhere mentioned in the Jharkhand Engineering Service Appointment Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules, 2016”) or in the said advertisement. It is also submitted that the said action amounts to categorization within a category and the same is impermissible. The JPSC has given specific cut-off marks for the candidates who have claimed benefits of horizontal reservation and has also extended the benefit of said reservation which is not permissible in law in absence of any such provision in the Rules, 2016. It is further submitted that the benefit of reservation was also extended in the preliminary test of 7th to 10th Civil Services Examination and only after learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of “Kumar Sanyam & Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.” [L.P.A No. 13 of 2022] made certain queries from learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand and JPSC with respect to publication of preliminary test result of 7th to 10th Civil Services Examination, the JPSC itself sought to revise the entire result of said preliminary test by not extending the benefit of reservation due to which new candidates belonging to un-reserved category were short-listed and several candidates belonging to reserved categories were removed from the revised preliminary test result. Subsequently, on publishing the revised result, the appellants of LPA No. 13 of 2022 were allowed to withdraw the same vide order dated 15.02.2022. Subsequently, on publishing the revised result, the appellants of LPA No. 13 of 2022 were allowed to withdraw the same vide order dated 15.02.2022. It is also submitted that total number of posts advertised for Assistant Engineer (Civil) is 542 and as per Clause 11(A)(iv) of the said advertisement, 10 times result should have been published against the advertised posts meaning thereby that total 5420 candidates should have been shortlisted for mains examination, however, only 4536 candidates have been shortlisted which is unjustified also in view of the fact that around 21,000 candidates had appeared in the P.T. The petitioner represented the JPSC through emails dated 04.02.2022 and 16.02.2022 requesting it to amend the preliminary test result by not extending the benefit of reservation in preliminary test, however, of no avail. It is further submitted that the petitioner no. 1 is one mark short of the cut-off marks whereas other petitioners have obtained slightly less marks than the cut-off marks fixed for the candidates of general category. As such, if the candidates of reserved category are not included in the unreserved category, the petitioners will also be successful in the Preliminary Test, who have been seriously prejudiced by such arbitrary action of the respondents. 4. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, submits that in view of Clause 6(1)(iii)(ch) of Schedule-II read with Rule 7(ii) of the Jharkhand Engineering Services Recruitment Rules, 2016, a condition was incorporated as Clause 11A(iv) of the said advertisement mentioning that 10 times candidates against category-wise vacancies will be shortlisted for appearing in the Main (written) examination and accordingly cut-off marks of unreserved category was fixed to get the required number of candidates i.e., 10 times including SC/ST/BC-I and BC-II categories. While preparing such a category-wise result, all those candidates who touched the cut-off marks/last range of the marks fixed for each category were included in the list of successful candidates to appear in the Mains Examination inclusive of the reserved category candidates. The list of preliminary test result has been prepared strictly in conformity with the terms and conditions of the advertisement which was well known to the petitioners from the day they had applied for this examination. After publication of the preliminary test result on 14.08.2020, the JPSC conducted mains examination, the result of which was published on 19.05.2022. The list of preliminary test result has been prepared strictly in conformity with the terms and conditions of the advertisement which was well known to the petitioners from the day they had applied for this examination. After publication of the preliminary test result on 14.08.2020, the JPSC conducted mains examination, the result of which was published on 19.05.2022. Thereafter, the date for documents verification of the successful candidates as well as interview was fixed from 29.05.2022 to 12.06.2022, the information of which was also given to the candidates by way of press communiqué. It is further submitted that the petitioners are the unsuccessful candidates and they have filed the present writ petition on 04.03.2022 i.e., after about five months of conducting the mains examination by the JPSC from 22.10.2021 to 24.10.2021. If the petitioners were aggrieved with the preliminary test result dated 14.08.2020 they should have challenged the same before this court immediately after publication of preliminary test result on 14.08.2020 and as such the present writ petition is not worth consideration. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the preliminary test result, but they have not impleaded the successful candidates (i.e., 5528 in number) as respondents in the present writ petition. It is also submitted that the order of “Kumar Sanyam” (supra) is related to the Combined Civil Services Competitive Examination, 2021 which is commonly known as 7th to 10th Combined Civil Service Examination. The new rule namely, the Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination Rules, 2021 has been notified by the State Government through Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa Notification No. 162 dated 08.01.2021 for conducting Combined Civil Service Examination relating to 15 different State Civil Services. The said rule is not general in nature but is specific for Combined Civil Service Examinations and therefore the same cannot be taken as an example. 5. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Piprawall, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-JPSC, fully adopts the argument of learned A.G. 6. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Interveners, who are the successful candidates in the Mains Examination pursuant to Advertisement No. 05/2019, submits that the issue of horizontal reservation is not affecting the case of the petitioners and thus the same is academic in nature. It is further submitted that petitioners are in-service candidates, who intend to delay the process of appointment of Assistant Engineers for extraneous reason. It is further submitted that petitioners are in-service candidates, who intend to delay the process of appointment of Assistant Engineers for extraneous reason. It is further submitted that the open category is not a quota, rather the same is available for all the candidates irrespective of caste or gender. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioners seek quashing of the preliminary test result of Jharkhand Combined Assistant Engineer Direct Recruitment Competitive Examination declared in pursuance of Advertisement No. 05/2019. 8. The thrust of argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the JPSC while preparing the result of preliminary test, has migrated the candidates of reserved category to unreserved (UNR) category which is not permissible in the eyes of law. If the reserved category candidates are allowed to migrate and are accommodated in unreserved category, the same will amount to giving benefit of reservation at the stage of preliminary test. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners puts reliance on the order of learned Division Bench of this Court passed in the case of “Kumar Sanyam” (supra) and contends that the impugned procedure followed by the JPSC is contrary to the observation made in the said case. 10. On the other hand, learned A.G submits that the result of the preliminary test has been published strictly in accordance with the conditions stipulated in the Advertisement No. 05/2019. It is also submitted that as per Clause 11(A)(iv) of the Advertisement, 10 times candidates were required to be selected against category-wise vacancies for mains examination and thus the cut off marks of each category was fixed in such a manner so as to get 10 times candidates under each category. So far as unreserved category is concerned, the same is open for all meritorious candidates and all those who achieved the said cut off marks were shortlisted under unreserved category irrespective of the fact that few of them were reserved category candidates. 11. Learned A.G. argues that the petitioners were fully aware of the Rules, 2016 as well as the advertisement and they, after getting unsuccessful in the preliminary test, have preferred the present writ petition much belatedly and as such, they may not be allowed to question the preliminary test result, which is completely in consonance with the Rules, 2016 and the advertisement. 12. 12. Learned A.G puts reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of “Chandra Prakash Tiwari & Ors. Vs. Shakuntala Shukla & Ors.” reported in (2002) 6 SCC 127 , “Gurmeet Pal Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.” reported in (2018) 7 SCC 260 and “Anupal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.” reported in (2020) 2 SCC 173 , wherein it has been held that in the event a candidate appears in interview and participates in the same, only because the result of the interview is not “palatable” to him, he cannot turn around and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or there was some lacuna in the process. It has also been held that when a candidate appears in an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. 13. To appreciate the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to go through the relevant provisions of Jharkhand Engineering Service Appointment Rules, 2016 as well as the conditions of Advertisement No. 05/2019. Under serial no. 6(1)(iii)(ch) of Schedule-II of Rules, 2016, it has specifically been provided that in any particular year the Commission will fix the number of candidates for appearing in mains examination. If it is necessary to conduct Preliminary Examination, then 10 times candidates against category-wise vacancies shall be selected for Mains Examination. In the said advertisement also, under Clause 11(A)(iv), it has been mentioned that 10 times candidates against category-wise vacancies shall be shortlisted for Mains Examination. 14. The petitioners have neither challenged the provisions of Rules, 2016 nor any term of the advertisement, thus without entering into the validity of the same, this Court proceeds to examine as to whether the relevant stipulations have duly been followed by the respondent-JPSC while shortlisting the candidates in the preliminary test. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent-JPSC has placed before this Court a chart containing details of vacancies and the number of candidates shortlisted in the preliminary test which is reproduced herein below for ready reference in the present case: Sl. No. Category Vacancies 10 times of Vacancy No. of selected candidates (including equivalent marks) Cut-off Remarks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. UNR 275 2750 2834 184 In UNR Category EWS 31, ST-19, SC-15, BC-I-108, BC-II-83 were selected 2. No. Category Vacancies 10 times of Vacancy No. of selected candidates (including equivalent marks) Cut-off Remarks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. UNR 275 2750 2834 184 In UNR Category EWS 31, ST-19, SC-15, BC-I-108, BC-II-83 were selected 2. EWS 52 520 108 Male-120 Female-106 Total selected EWS 139 3. ST 128 1280 714 96 Total selected 733 4. SC 28 280 282 115 Total selected 297 5. BC-I 32 320 324 142 Total selected 432 6. BC-II 27 270 274 129 Total selected 357 TOTAL 542 5420 4536 16. Thus, under SC, BC-I and BC-II categories 10 times candidates have been shortlisted, however, under EWS and ST categories, 10 times candidates have not been selected which is justified by the respondent-JPSC stating that sufficient number of candidates have not got minimum qualifying marks under the said categories. So far unreserved category is concerned, all those candidates who got the cut off marks of the said category, have been shortlisted under that category irrespective of the fact that some of them belonged to reserved category. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners also puts reliance on the Division Bench judgment of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Bench rendered in the case of “Sunita Meena Vs. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr.” (D.B Civil Writ Petition No. 1244 of 2022), wherein the learned Bench after having relied on few earlier judgments of said court has held that the rule of migration to general category will not be applicable at the stage of screening by way of preliminary test. 18. Learned A.G submits that the judgment of “Sunita Meena” (supra) is not relevant to the facts and circumstance of the present case. It is submitted that in the case of “Sunita Meena” (supra) as has been relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners, it has been held that migration is not to be applied while shortlisting the candidates for interview or mains examination subjecting them to screening test. It has further been held that rule of migration will be applicable only at the time of preparation of final merit list and not before that. However, the present case is not a case of migration, rather the reserved category candidates who got the cut-off marks fixed for unreserved category have been placed under that category strictly in terms with the provisions of the Rules, 2016 and the conditions of the advertisement. However, the present case is not a case of migration, rather the reserved category candidates who got the cut-off marks fixed for unreserved category have been placed under that category strictly in terms with the provisions of the Rules, 2016 and the conditions of the advertisement. Moreover, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition after an inordinate delay and thus they are not entitled for any relief. 19. I have perused the said judgment from which it transpires that in the aforesaid case, the benefit of horizontal reservation was given to widow of General, SC and OBC categories, however, no such benefit of horizontal reservation was given to the widow of ST, EWS and MBC categories. The petitioner of that case challenged the legality and validity of the category-wise list prepared after preliminary test as also her non-inclusion by giving benefit of horizontal reservation as a widow candidate in ST category. By way of an alternative prayer, the petitioner of the said case also claimed that since she got higher marks than the cut-off marks of general (widow) category, she was entitled to be placed in the merit list of the general (widow) category by applying the rule of migration. Learned Bench declined to entertain the challenge to the reservation policy and terms of the advertisement observing that she participated in the process of selection and then challenged the same after being unsuccessful in the preliminary test. So far as her alternative prayer was concerned, learned Bench observed that the rule of migration was not applicable in the screening test. 20. Thus, in the case of “Sunita Meena” (supra), the petitioner of that case was claiming migration to a seat which was reserved for widow of general category. The facts and circumstance of the present case is entirely different. Here, it is not the case that any reserved category candidate has been migrated to any seat which is horizontally reserved for any specific category of beneficiary under general category. In the present case, the reserved category candidates, who have got cut off marks fixed for unreserved category, have been placed under that category which is open for all the meritorious candidates. In the present case, the reserved category candidates, who have got cut off marks fixed for unreserved category, have been placed under that category which is open for all the meritorious candidates. That apart, in the said case, the result of the preliminary test was challenged before mains examination, however, in the present case, the preliminary test result has been challenged much after the mains examination when the result of the same was awaited. 21. Moreover, in the case of “Saurav Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.” reported in (2021) 4 SCC 542 as has been relied by learned A.G, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after referring to several earlier judgments, has held that a candidate belonging to any of the vertical reservation categories is entitled to be selected in the Open or General Category on the basis of his own merit and in such eventuality his selection is not to be counted against the quota reserved for such vertical reservation category. 22. In “Saurav Yadav” (supra), Their Lordships have further held as under: 27. The High Courts of Rajasthan, Bombay, Uttarakhand, and Gujarat have adopted the same principle while dealing with horizontal reservation whereas the High Court of Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh have taken a contrary view. These two views, for facility, are referred to as the “first view” and the “second view” respectively. The second view that weighed with the High Courts of Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh is essentially based on the premise that after the first two steps as detailed in para 18 of the decision in [Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., (1995) 5 SCC 173 ] and after vertical reservations are provided for, at the stage of accommodating candidates for effecting horizontal reservation, the candidates from reserved categories can be adjusted only against their own categories under the vertical reservation concerned and not against the “Open or General Category”. 38. 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. 61. The open category is not a “quota”, but rather available to all women and men alike. Similarly, as held in [Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, (2007) 8 SCC 785 ], 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 U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 2674] and the Madhya Pradesh High Court in [State of M.P. v. Uday Sisode, 2019 SCC OnLine MP 5750], referred to in paras 24 and 25 of Lalit, J.'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 supports—but definitely results in confining the number of women in the select list to the overall numerical quota assured by the rule. 23. Thus, an unreserved category cannot be said to be reserved only for general category candidates, rather the same is open for all meritorious candidates and all those who get cut-off marks equivalent to unreserved category, are to be selected as unreserved candidates. 24. In the present case, the petitioners have neither challenged the Rules, 2016 nor the conditions stipulated in the advertisement. Moreover, even after publication of the preliminary test result on 14.08.2020, they sat idle. In the meantime, the JPSC conducted the mains examination from 22.10.2021 to 24.10.2021 and was in the process of publication of the mains examination result. 24. In the present case, the petitioners have neither challenged the Rules, 2016 nor the conditions stipulated in the advertisement. Moreover, even after publication of the preliminary test result on 14.08.2020, they sat idle. In the meantime, the JPSC conducted the mains examination from 22.10.2021 to 24.10.2021 and was in the process of publication of the mains examination result. Then, on 04.03.2022 i.e., after more than one and half year of declaration of preliminary test result, the petitioners filed the present writ petition challenging its result. In order to justify the said delay, learned counsel for the petitioners has explained that similar issue was also raised in Preliminary Test of 7th – 10th Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination, wherein the ground for challenge was that several students of reserved categories were migrated/ accommodated in unreserved category while preparing the result of said preliminary test and learned Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.01.2022 passed in L.P.A No. 13 of 2022 put certain queries from JPSC/State. After the said queries made by learned Division Bench, the JPSC had given undertaking to learned Bench on 25.01.2022 for revising the result of said preliminary test. Thereafter, the JPSC revised the result of preliminary test and placed the same before the learned Court on 15.02.2022. Since the grievance of the appellants regarding the issue that no reservation can be given in the preliminary test was set at rest, the said L.P.A as well as the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5611 of 2021 were allowed to be withdrawn vide order dated 15.02.2022. 25. The said explanation does not justify such an inordinate delay in filing the present writ petition. If the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted, then no examination for filling up the public posts will come to an end and there will always be a possibility that on the basis of a favorable judgment rendered in due course, an unsuccessful candidate will approach the court seeking reopening of already finalized process of filling up the vacancy of public posts. There is a well-known maxim “Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt” which means the law assists only those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. When a person seeks relief under discretionary writ jurisdiction, he/she should come to the court with clean hands and within reasonable time. There is a well-known maxim “Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt” which means the law assists only those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. When a person seeks relief under discretionary writ jurisdiction, he/she should come to the court with clean hands and within reasonable time. A person who does not challenge a wrongful action and acquiesces into the same and wakes up after long delay subsequent to passing of any judgment, no relief can be granted to him/her on the ground of delay and is only to be treated as a fence sitter. 26. The order of Division Bench passed in “Kumar Sanyam” (supra) is not applicable to the present case since the same was related to the Combined Civil Services Competitive Examination, 2021 guided by a separate Rule, whereas for the present advertisement, the Rules, 2016 is applicable which explicitly provides that 10 times candidates under each category will be selected for the mains examination. 27. The next limb of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent-JPSC in its counter affidavit had specifically admitted its wrong by stating in paragraph nos. 21 and 41 of the same that due to inadvertence the reserved category candidates who secured marks equivalent to the marks of the last successful candidate in unreserved category have been placed in the unreserved category. Subsequently, the respondent-JPSC by filing I.A No. 4859 of 2022 sought amendment of the statements made in the said paragraphs of the counter affidavit and tried to take a different stand that the preliminary test result was declared strictly in conformity with the terms and conditions of the advertisement and the Rules, 2016. It is also submitted that the said amendment amounts to a sea change in the stand of JPSC which cannot be permitted in the eyes of law. 28. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the petitioners puts reliance on a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Heera Lal Vs. Kalyan Mal & Ors.” reported in (1998) 1 SCC 278 wherein it has been held that once the written statement contains an admission in favour of the plaintiff, such admission of the defendants cannot be allowed to be withdrawn if the same amounts to totally displacing the case of the plaintiff causing irretrievable prejudice to him. 29. Kalyan Mal & Ors.” reported in (1998) 1 SCC 278 wherein it has been held that once the written statement contains an admission in favour of the plaintiff, such admission of the defendants cannot be allowed to be withdrawn if the same amounts to totally displacing the case of the plaintiff causing irretrievable prejudice to him. 29. In the case of “B.K Narayana Pillai Vs. Parameswaran Pillai & Anr.” reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 , as has been relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the defendant has right to amend the written statement, however, the same is subject to an exception that the proposed amendment should not cause injustice to the other side. Inconsistent and contradictory allegations in negation to the admitted position of facts or mutually destructive allegations of facts should not be allowed to be incorporated by means of amendment to the pleadings. Proposed amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated by cost. No amendment should be allowed which amounts to defeating a legal right accrued to the opposite party on account of lapse of time. 30. Since the present case is being considered under writ jurisdiction and the contention of the petitioners is being appreciated on the basis of relevant provisions of Rules, the terms and conditions incorporated in the advertisement as well as the facts and circumstance of this case, I do not think it appropriate to go into the issue of change made in the counter affidavit by the JPSC as the rigours of CPC does not apply in a writ proceeding. 31. In the case of “Commissioner of Endowments & Ors. Vs. Vittal Rao & Ors.” reported in (2005) 4 SCC 120 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under : 17. The High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution has jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders. Such power can neither be controlled nor affected by the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. It would not be correct to say that the terms of Order 23 Rule 3 should be mandatorily complied with while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Otherwise an anomalous situation would arise such as before disposing of the writ petition, issue should be framed or evidence should be recorded, etc. It would not be correct to say that the terms of Order 23 Rule 3 should be mandatorily complied with while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Otherwise an anomalous situation would arise such as before disposing of the writ petition, issue should be framed or evidence should be recorded, etc. Proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution stand on a different footing when compared to the proceedings in suits or appeals arising therefrom. 32. Learned counsel for the petitioners, by inviting the attention of the Court to Annexure 3/1 of the writ petition, submits that the respondent-JPSC while preparing the preliminary test result has also fixed cut-off marks for providing horizontal reservations to women, sports person, blind, deaf & dumb, locomotive and autism & multiple disability which is not permissible in view of the terms of the advertisement as well as the Rules, 2016. To counter the said argument, learned counsel for the JPSC contends that the said chart was prepared only for the internal purpose of the JPSC to see as to how many persons of said categories have been included so as to be considered for final selection. It is further submitted that benefit of horizontal reservation has not been given while publishing the preliminary test result. 33. In view of the specific stand taken by learned counsel for the JPSC that horizontal reservation has not been given in preliminary test, any contrary argument made by learned counsel for the petitioners without any specific proof of the same, cannot be accepted that too when the said issue is being raised after an inordinate delay. 34. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no reason to interfere with the preliminary test result of Jharkhand Combined Assistant Engineer Direct Recruitment Examination published in pursuance of Advertisement No. 05/2019. 35. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. I.A. Nos. 3598/2022, 4473/2022 and 4859/2022 also stand dismissed accordingly.