ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The writ petitioners (hereinafter referred as appellant) are aggrieved of the order dated 14th July 2022 by which WP(C) No.1023 of 2022 has been dismissed. 2. The plea set up by the appellant that in the Preliminary Test migration of reserved category candidates into the open category is not permissible has not been accepted by the writ Court. 3. Briefly stated, Advertisement No. 05 of 2019 was issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (in short, 'Commission') in October, 2019 inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up 637 posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil-542) and (Mechanical-95) in the Road Construction Department and the Water Resources and Drinking Water & Sanitation Department of the Government of Jharkhand. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the appellant applied under the unreserved category for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) for which the Preliminary Test was conducted on 19th January 2020. The list of the selected candidates in the Preliminary Test was published on 14th August 2020 – the appellant was declared unsuccessful. 4. As noticed above, the writ Court rejected the challenge laid to the said result by the appellant observing as under : “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. 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. ESW 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. 5. The writ Court has also referred to the judgments in “Chandra Prakash Tiwari & Ors. v. Shakuntala Shukla & Ors.” (2002) 6 SCC 127 , “Gurmeet Pal Singh v. State of Punjab & anr. (2018) 7 SCC 260 and“Anupal Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.” (2020) 2 SCC 173 , which were cited on behalf of the State of Jharkhand to put forth a plea that merely because the final result is not palatable to a candidate who having participated in the selection process has failed, the writ Court shall not entertain any challenge by such a candidate raising a grievance as regards the purported illegality or irregularity committed in course of the selection process. 6. Mr. 6. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned senior counsel for the appellant, has contended that migration of the reserved category candidates into the quota of open category would amount to reservation, and by making such provision for the reserved category candidates the reservation quota shall also exceed what is permissible in law. It is further submitted that there is no provision in the advertisement for such migration in the Preliminary Test and while so, the parties must be held bound by the terms of the advertisement. 7. The stand of the State of Jharkhand has been put forth by the learned Advocate General who has submitted that the result of the Preliminary Test has been prepared in terms of the Jharkhand Engineering Service Recruitment Rules, 2016, the relevant provisions of which are sufficiently incorporated under clause 11(A) of the Advertisement No. 05 of 2019. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, the learned counsel for the Commission has extensively referred to the affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission to submit that there is no illegality committed in preparation of the result. The learned counsel for the private respondents has also addressed the Court on the merits of the matter and finally submitted that the whole efforts of the appellant has been to delay the process of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers by delaying publication of the final results of Advertisement No.05 of 2019. 8. Under clause 11 of the Advertisement, the following stipulations have been made for conducting the examination for selection to the post of Assistant Engineers: --HINDI LANGAUGE--- English Translation: “11. Scheme of Examination-Preliminary Examination, Main (Written Examination and Interview) will be conducted by the Commission for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil/Mechanical). A. Preliminary Examination:- i. The preliminary examination will consist of two papers each consisting of 100 multiple choice objective type questions. The General Studies questions will be bilingual (English and Hindi) and the elective subject Engineering questions will be in English language only. (i) Paper-1 General Studies. Marks - 100 Time: Two hours (ii) Paper-II Elective Subject (Engineering)Marks-200 Time:Two hours ii. Syllabus The Syllabus for Preliminary Examination of Paper I (General Studies) and Paper II (Elective Subject Engineering) will be as per the syllabus of Main (Written) Examination prescribed for these subjects in Jharkhand Engineering Service Recruitment Rules, 2016. iii. This exam will be in the nature of Screening Test only. Syllabus The Syllabus for Preliminary Examination of Paper I (General Studies) and Paper II (Elective Subject Engineering) will be as per the syllabus of Main (Written) Examination prescribed for these subjects in Jharkhand Engineering Service Recruitment Rules, 2016. iii. This exam will be in the nature of Screening Test only. Its marks will not be considered in preparation of merit list. iv. For the main (written) examination the number of candidates shall be 10 times against category-wise vacancies." 9. There is no dispute that the aforesaid stipulation under sub-clause (A)(iv) of clause 11 in the Advertisement No.05 of 2019 has been reproduced from Schedule-II to the Notification issued by the Government of Jharkhand under Article 309 of the Constitution of India by which the Rules for appointment, promotion, allowance, pension etc. have been framed. 10. Clause 6(1) (iii) (cha) of the Schedule-II of the Jharkhand Engineering Service Recruitment Rules, 2016 of the Government of Jharkhand reads as under: -----HINDI LANGAUGE----- English Translation: cha. In a particular year, the Commission shall decide the number of candidates for appearing in the main examination. If it is necessary to conduct the preliminary examination, then ten times candidates against category wise vacancies shall be selected for the main examination." 11. A glance at the aforesaid rule makes it clear that on the day on which Advertisement No. 05 of 2019 was issued the Commission had the powers to decide the number of candidates for the Mains examination. It has further been provided that if the selection process includes Preliminary Test a category-wise list of the candidates ten times the number of vacancies shall be prepared for the Mains examination. This is also beyond any doubt that the Commission has the powers to take a decision in the matters pertaining to the Advertisement No.05 of 2019. Even if it is assumed that the Commission prepared the list of the candidates for Mains examination by permitting migration of 256 candidates belonging to different reserved categories into the open category such decision has been applied uniformly to all and is not arbitrary or discriminatory. Even if it is assumed that the Commission prepared the list of the candidates for Mains examination by permitting migration of 256 candidates belonging to different reserved categories into the open category such decision has been applied uniformly to all and is not arbitrary or discriminatory. Even otherwise, having regard to the constitutional mandate under Article 335 of the Constitution of India which provides that in the matters of public appointment and employment the State shall ensure that the merit is not compromised, such migration could not be violative of the equality clause under Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution of India. We are inclined to say so, because on admitted facts the candidates who were permitted to migrate in the open category have secured more marks than the candidates who claimed their ouster on account of some arbitrary decision of the Commission. No doubt the provisions under clause 4 to Article 16 of the Constitution of India are enabling provisions which do not confer any right on a reserved category candidate nor does such provision cast a duty on the Government to make reservation in the public employment, but then, the statutory provisions for reservation made by the State Government and the restrictions as incorporated under Article 335 of the Constitution of India have to be given effect. 12. In the above context, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “M. Nagaraj v. Union of India” (2006) 8 SCC 212 , which are as under may be kept in mind: “108. Applying the above tests to the proviso to Article 335 inserted by the Constitution (Eighty-second Amendment) Act, 2000 we find that the said proviso has a nexus with Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4-B). Efficiency in administration is held to be a constitutional limitation on the discretion vested in the State to provide for reservation in public employment. Under the proviso to Article 335, it is stated that nothing in Article 335 shall prevent the State to relax qualifying marks or standards of evaluation for reservation in promotion. This proviso is also confined only to members of SCs and STs. This proviso is also conferring discretionary power on the State to relax qualifying marks or standards of evaluation. Therefore, the question before us is— whether the State could be empowered to relax qualifying marks or standards for reservation in matters of promotion. This proviso is also confined only to members of SCs and STs. This proviso is also conferring discretionary power on the State to relax qualifying marks or standards of evaluation. Therefore, the question before us is— whether the State could be empowered to relax qualifying marks or standards for reservation in matters of promotion. In our view, even after insertion of this proviso, the limitation of overall efficiency in Article 335 is not obliterated. Reason is that “efficiency” is a variable factor. It is for the State concerned to decide in a given case, whether the overall efficiency of the system is affected by such relaxation. If the relaxation is so excessive that it ceases to be qualifying marks then certainly in a given case, as in the past, the State is free not to relax such standards. In other cases, the State may evolve a mechanism under which efficiency, equity and justice, all three variables, could be accommodated. Moreover, Article 335 is to be read with Article 46 which provides that the State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice. Therefore, where the State finds compelling interests of backwardness and inadequacy, it may relax the qualifying marks for SCs/STs. These compelling interests however have to be identified by weighty and comparable data. 109. In conclusion, we reiterate that the object behind the impugned constitutional amendments is to confer discretion on the State to make reservations for SCs/STs in promotions subject to the circumstances and the constitutional limitations indicated above.” 13. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that by permitting migration of the reserved category candidate into the open category the quota fixed for the general category candidates shall be reduced and as a consequence thereof some of the candidates like the appellant would suffer injustice. To this plea, we are unable to accord our concurrence with the appellant for the reason that in legal parlance the expression “general category” does not include only those who do not fall under the reserved category. We have not been shown any law on this point that a reserved category candidate is not included in the expression “open category”. 14. In “Saurav Yadav & Ors. We have not been shown any law on this point that a reserved category candidate is not included in the expression “open category”. 14. In “Saurav Yadav & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.” (2021) 4 SCC 542 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that; “59. The features of vertical reservations are: 59.1. 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 social category concerned only (SC/ST/OBC). 59.2. Mobility (“migration”) from the reserved (specified category) to the unreserved (open category) slot is possible, based on meritorious performance. 59.3. 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. 59.4. 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.” 15. But before that, in “Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan” (1995) 6 SCC 684 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that while determining the number of posts reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes the candidates belonging to reserved category but selected/promoted on the rule of merit (and not by virtue of rule of reservation) shall not be counted as reserved category candidates. 16. In yet another decision, in “Sadhana Singh Dangi v. Pinki Asati” 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1329 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “26. It is true that the leading judgment in Saurav Yadav (supra) considered the matter from a general plane but the concurring judgment authored by S. Ravindra Bhat, J. did additionally consider the issue from the perspective of absence of any statutory Rules in the field. It is also true that in the instant case, there are Rules occupying the field and the case would be a fortiori, but we need not enter into that arena as, in our view, the general propositions laid down in Saurav Yadav (supra) by themselves are sufficient to take care of the controversy which has arisen in the instant matters. 27. 27. The law laid down in Saurav Yadav is very clear that even while applying horizontal reservation, the merit must be given precedence and that if the candidates who belong to SCs, STs and OBCs have secured higher marks or are more meritorious, they must be considered against the seats meant for unreserved candidates.” 17. In view of the aforesaid judgments, we think that the writ Court has rightly held that the 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. 18. The learned Advocate General has submitted that the writ petition which was filed on 4th March 2022 suffered from laches and gross delay on the part of the appellant. With this submission, the learned Advocate General has supported the following findings recorded by the writ Court: “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. 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. 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.” 19. On behalf of the appellant, it is submitted that the first affidavit filed by the Commission was so misleading that he could not apprehend any wrongdoing by the Commission and, therefore, had no occasion to approach the Court soon after the results for PT examination were published. We, however, think that howsoever hard the appellant may try this issue of delay shall be a relevant factor for declining relief to the appellant. Advertisement No.05 of 2019 was issued by the Commission in the month of October 2019 and the result for the Preliminary examination held on 19th January 2020 was published on 14th August 2020 and Mains examination was conducted between 22nd October 2021 to 24th October 2021. Advertisement No.05 of 2019 was issued by the Commission in the month of October 2019 and the result for the Preliminary examination held on 19th January 2020 was published on 14th August 2020 and Mains examination was conducted between 22nd October 2021 to 24th October 2021. There is no dispute that the results for the Mains examination were published on 19th May 2022 and the selected candidates were invited for interview between the period 29th May 2022 to 12th June 2022. It was long thereafter that the writ petition was filed by the appellant and other two unsuccessful candidates. 20. We may also indicate that Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel for the respondents has taken a preliminary objection on the ground that one of the writ petitioners has already approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of one of the issues raised in connection to preparation of result pertaining to Advertisement No.05 of 2019 and the Special Leave Petition vide SLP(C) No.24010 of 2021 preferred by him has been dismissed by an order dated 2nd December 2021. 21. The submission made by Mr. Manoj Tandon is that in the first place the appellant No.1 is guilty of suppression of material facts. Secondly, the findings recorded in the judgment dated 10th September 2021 in LPA Nos. 82 & 85 of 2021 which have been affirmed by the order dated 2nd December 2021 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by which the Special Leave Petition preferred by one of the writ petitioners has been dismissed shall bind the appellant as well. 22. While we have considered the matter in the above perspective, the other issues raised by the appellant that (i) the Commission made false statement on affidavit (ii) the writ Court has applied the ratio of “Saurav Yadav” de hors the facts of this case, need no further elaboration and discussion. We would simply conclude by indicating that whether or not there was delay in approaching the Court or the Commission took vacillating stand before the writ Court are the issues which could have been of some importance had this Court found merit in the plea raised by the appellant, but, that we do not see any in the present case. The writ Court has adopted a pragmatic approach and rightly decided not to interfere in the matter. The writ Court has adopted a pragmatic approach and rightly decided not to interfere in the matter. The powers of the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is plenary but such powers are exercised in furtherance of public good. In a selection process in which thousands of candidates have participated for appointment on 637 posts of Assistant Engineer, the writ Court shall not undo the whole exercise at the instance of few candidates. If at all such candidates are able to establish their illegal ouster from the selection process, their remedy would be before the civil Court to seek damages and compensation. The invocation of writ jurisdiction is permissible only in public law remedy and not in a case of the present nature. 23. In summation, we do not find any ground to disagree with the writ Court's order passed in WP(C) No.1023 of 2022 and, accordingly, LPA No. 292 of 2022 is dismissed.