ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. In 2013, the National Council of Educational Research and Training issued an advertisement seeking applications from candidates for the National Talent Search Examination, 4 [“NTSE”]. During the course of the examination, candidates were subjected to two objective type tests, namely, (i) a mental ability test; and (ii) a scholastic aptitude test. The first and second respondents who were students at the Class ten stage, applied for the NTSE. Provisional results were declared. A decision was taken to the effect that the marks secured in the English language would be treated only for the purpose of qualification. The first and second respondents did not qualify at the examination. However, they obtained information under Right to Information Act, in pursuance of which they were intimated that the marks which were scored in the language test were not taken into account in the final selection. 3. The respondents instituted a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court. They were aggrieved by the fact that the language test was only a qualifying test and not for computing the aggregate marks in the preparation of the merit list. It appears, during the course of submissions of the appellants, that the decision to treat the language test only for qualification was taken by a committee on the basis of representations received on behalf of the students to the effect that treating the language test of English for the purpose of computing the merit list would cause serious prejudice to students particularly from a rural background. 4. The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and directed the appellants to determine the merit of the first and second respondents afresh after considering the marks which were scored in the language test. This decision was taken on the basis of the judgment of this Court in K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, (2008) 3 SCC 512 . The writ appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench. 5. On 12 February 2018, notice was issued in these proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution and the contempt proceedings which were initiated before the High Court were stayed. The writ appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench. 5. On 12 February 2018, notice was issued in these proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution and the contempt proceedings which were initiated before the High Court were stayed. The proceedings have been tagged together with Civil Appeal No 2634 of 2013, 6 [Tej Prakash Pathak vs. Rajasthan High Court] in which a reference has been made to the Constitution Bench on the basic issue as to whether the rules of the game can be changed midway after the selection process has been initiated. In the present case, despite service, none has appeared on behalf of the first and second respondents. 6. We are not inclined to go into the broader question which was raised on the reference to the Constitution Bench in the facts of the present case. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge would result in a situation where the entire result would have to be redone despite the fact that a conscious decision was taken in the interest of the students not to treat the language test as a merit based test but only for the purpose of qualification. 7. If the judgment of the Single Judge were to be upheld, as has been done by the Division Bench, the result would have to be recast at this point of time, nearly eight years after the examination has been concluded. In the meantime, following the declaration of the results the award of scholarships following the NTSE has already taken place to a large number of students situated all over the country. In this backdrop and without this Court expressing any opinion on the broader question of law which was sought to be raised, we are of the considered opinion that it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court which we accordingly do. 8. The appeal shall stand disposed of in the above terms. 9. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.