ORDER : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. The instant writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred, claiming the following reliefs: CW No.8552/2023 (General Category and suffering Autism and multiple disabilities to the extent of 45%): “It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed : (A) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Notice/Provisional Selection List (NON-TSP Area) dated 11.06.2023 (Annex.6) may kindly be quashed and set aside. (B) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent may kindly be directed to consider the petitioner as qualified for Type Writing Test on Computer and he also may be exempted from the typing test. (C) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent may kindly be directed to consider the petitioner as eligible for documents verification, while keeping one post vacate for the petitioner. (D) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent may kindly be directed to amend and re-release the result of the petitioner (Annex.-7) while considering the petitioner as Qualified for Type Writing Test On Computer. (E) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (F) Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.” CW No.8729/2023 [Economically Weaker Section (EWS) Category and suffering Disability (Deaf & Hard of hearing)]: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this petition for writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be allowed. By an appropriate writ, order and directions: (i) The Notice dated 11.06.2023 (Anx.7) may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) As the petitioner is physically handicapped person and is exempted from appearing in the Type Writing Test on Computer, the respondents may kindly be directed to award average marks in Type Writing Test on computer on the basis of the marks obtained by him in the written examination. (iii) The respondent may kindly be directed to review the result and issue revised notice/result and declare the petitioner eligible for appointment on the post of Junior Judicial Assistant/Junior Assistant/Clerk Gr.II. (iii) The respondent may kindly be directed to review the result and issue revised notice/result and declare the petitioner eligible for appointment on the post of Junior Judicial Assistant/Junior Assistant/Clerk Gr.II. (iv) any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in favour of the petitioner, may kindly be granted and (v) the cost of the writ petition be allowed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as revealed from the record, are that an advertisement had been issued on 19.03.2020, however the same came to be cancelled due to candidate impersonation and thus fresh advertisement was issued on 05.08.2022 by the respondents, and the exam came to be conducted on 13.03.2022 for direct recruitment on certain posts, namely, Junior Judicial Assistant under the establishment of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court; Junior Assistant under the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority and District Legal Services Authorities (Taluka Legal Services Committees & Permanent Lok Adalats); and Clerk Grade-II under the Rajasthan State Judicial Academy and District Judiciary of Rajasthan, against the available vacancies. 3. In pursuance of the aforementioned advertisement, while petitioner-Jagdish Singh Rajpurohit (CW No.8552/2023) submitted the application form under the General Category in Autism & Multiple Disabilities Category, petitioner-Kapil Joshi (CW No.8729/2023) submitted the application form under the EWS Category with Deaf & Hard of Hearing disability. 4. Though both the petitioners, belong to different categories with different disabilities, as above, and revealed from their respective application forms, but for the purposes of the instant petitions pertaining to the recruitment in question, they claimed themselves to be the persons falling under the category of “Persons with Benchmark Disabilities”. 5. As discernible from the record, both the petitioners are aggrieved of their ouster from the recruitment process in question on count of mentioning of “Not Qualified for Type Writing Test on Computer”, in their respective Statement of Marks issued by the respondents, in pursuance of the written examination. On count of the same, the petitioners’ name stood excluded from the impugned list of provisionally selected candidates recommended for appointment, as published by the respondent on 11.06.2023, thereby depriving them of an opportunity of the public employment in pursuance of the recruitment exercise in question. 6. On count of the same, the petitioners’ name stood excluded from the impugned list of provisionally selected candidates recommended for appointment, as published by the respondent on 11.06.2023, thereby depriving them of an opportunity of the public employment in pursuance of the recruitment exercise in question. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in pursuance of the prescription as contained in Section-B (Type-writing Test on Computer) of Clause 14 (Scheme & Syllabus of Examination) of the advertisement in question and owing to their disabilities, the petitioners mentioned ‘No’, as against the column No.3.3 “Do you want to appear in Type-Writing Test on Computer?”, thereby sought exemption/relaxation from appearing in the said Test, thus in consequence of such exemption/relaxation, the petitioners ought to have been awarded marks in the Typewriting Test on the basis of the average marks obtained by them in the written examination. 6.1. In furtherance, the petitioners ought to have been declared as “qualified” on count of such exemption/relaxation, which has not been done in the present case by the respondent, resulting into their non-inclusion in the list of provisionally selected candidates and their deprivation of appearing in the process of documents verification for the purpose of their appointment in pursuance of the recruitment process in question. 6.2. Learned counsel further submits that despite a clear prescription as regards the posts under the categories to which the present petitioners belong and submitted the application form, have been duly filled and the same are still lying vacant. 6.3. Learned counsel also submits that in case due consideration owing to the exemption/relaxation from appearing the Typewriting Test is given to the petitioners’ candidature and had they been awarded marks on the basis of average of the marks obtained by them, the petitioners would have fallen within the prescribed cut off marks criteria, rather more than the same, as is apparent from the Statement of Marks of the petitioners secured by them in the written examination, but absence of such consideration by the respondents, resulted into ouster of the petitioners from the recruitment process in question. 6.4. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents have granted horizontal reservation to certain candidates falling under the category of Benchmark Disabilities mentioned against their core categories, viz. General, SC, ST etc., but not to the petitioners. 7. 6.4. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents have granted horizontal reservation to certain candidates falling under the category of Benchmark Disabilities mentioned against their core categories, viz. General, SC, ST etc., but not to the petitioners. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, submits that only those candidates who got the minimum qualifying marks in the written test and who had already opted for relaxation from giving computer test were given relaxation in the typewriting test on computer, and thereafter the marks were to be awarded on the basis of the aggregate marks secured from the written examination and type writing test. 7.1. Learned counsel further submits that the results for written examination were declared on 01.05.2023 wherein the cut off marks for General Category was 196.3451 whereas the marks obtained by the petitioner in CW No.8552/2023 was 188.5598, further the cut off marks for EWS Category were 224.5384 whereas the marks so obtained by the petitioner in CW No.8729/2023 was 151.7470, thus both the petitioners were unable to secure the cut off marks for their respective categories and were rightly ousted from the selection list. 7.2. Learned counsel also submits that even the persons with Benchmark Disabilities were eligible for appearing in the typewriting test on computer, subject to the extent of 5 times the number of category-wise vacancies, but in the said range, all those candidates, who secured the prescribed percentage of marks were to be included. 7.3. Learned counsel further submits that the principles enunciated with regard to appointment in all the categories of candidates against the unreserved posts, apply only after final selection for appointment on the posts, and has no bearing or application during various stages of the selection process, which may include short listing, written examination, interview etc. 7.4. Learned counsel also submits that in this case, the final list will be prepared after completion of each and every stage of the recruitment process, including the process of documents verification. As per learned counsel, the marks obtained at various stages of the selection process are not reflective of the final merit of the candidate, but are considered only for qualification to participate in the next stage and on the basis of which, the zone of consideration was determined in the present case by making due selection. 7.5. As per learned counsel, the marks obtained at various stages of the selection process are not reflective of the final merit of the candidate, but are considered only for qualification to participate in the next stage and on the basis of which, the zone of consideration was determined in the present case by making due selection. 7.5. In support of the above submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Rohitash Kumar Jat Vs. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9645/2023, decided, alongwith other connected petition, on 06.10.2023). 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 9. At the outset, it is considered appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Rohitash Kumar Jat (supra), dealing with a similar set of facts, as hereunder: “After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the issue raised in this petition is squarely covered in series of decisions which have been referred to by learned counsel for the respondents. Relying upon two earlier decisions in the case of Himanshu Kachhwaha Versus Rajasthan Public Service Commission (supra) as also Bhuvaneshwar Singh Chauhan Versus Rajasthan Public Service Commission (supra), a Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Vikram Singh Chouhan Versus State of Rajasthan (supra) examined identical issue where a prayer was made to declare illegal omission on the part of the recruiting agency to announce the cut off marks for the physically handicapped candidates. Taking note of the scheme of the Rules provided for horizontal reservation for persons with disabilities under Rajasthan Employment of Disabled Persons Rules, 2000 and further, taking into consideration that number of candidates to be admitted in the examination will be limited to 15 times of the total number of vacancies category-wise, placing reliance upon the decision of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney Versus Union of India (supra), it was held that reservations in favour of Schedules Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes are under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India and classified as vertical reservation, whereas reservations in favour of physically handicapped candidates are under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India and referable as horizontal reservations. Authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in this regard that horizontal reservations cut across the vertical reservations and are thus construed as inter-locking reservations was also noted. It was so observed in the case of Vikram Singh Chouhan Versus State of Rajasthan (supra), which reads as below:- “……..It was clarified that 3% reservation of the vacancies in favour of physically handicapped persons would be one relatable to Article 16(1) and the persons selected against this quota would be placed in the appropriate category i.e. if he belongs to SC category he would be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustments and similarly, if he belongs to open competition (OC) category, he would be placed in that category by making necessary adjustments. Their Lordships enounced that after providing these horizontal reservations, the percentage of reservations in favour of OBC category should remain the same. The above authoritative judicial edict thus clearly distinguishes these two types of reservations and the consequence attendant thereon. Their Lordships enounced that after providing these horizontal reservations, the percentage of reservations in favour of OBC category should remain the same. The above authoritative judicial edict thus clearly distinguishes these two types of reservations and the consequence attendant thereon. Patently, physically handicapped persons if selected against their quota of reserved vacancies, would eventually be placed in the appropriate category i.e. SC/ST/General/Women and would stand assimilated in those categories, so much so that the percentage of reservation in favour of backward class of citizens remains unaltered.” The conclusion arrived thereafter on such consideration was that omission to declare separate cut off marks for persons with benchmark disabilities is not illegal in view of emphatic and unequivocal exposition of law in the case of Indra Sawhney Versus Union of India (supra) distinguishing vertical and horizontal reservations in the context of the constitutional scheme therefor as enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution of India and consequential adjustments of those availing horizontal reservations in the respective categories i.e. General/SC/ST/OBC. Later on, another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ratanlal Versus Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (supra), again repelled the contention that the respondents therein while conducting recruitment for appointment to the post in the Civil Judge Cadre were required to declare separate cut off marks for the category of persons with benchmark disability, principally relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney Versus Union of India (supra) and Vikram Singh Chouhan Versus State of Rajasthan (supra). In view of above considerations and factual premise of the present case, the other decisions in the cases of Union of India & Anr. Versus National Federation of the Blind & Ors., 2013 (10) SCC 772 , Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors., 2016 (13) SCC 153 , and Ashok Kumar Giri Versus Union of India & Ors. 2016 (6) SCC 511 , Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation Versus Union of India & Anr., 2017 (14) SCC 1 , Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors. Versus State of U.P. & Ors., 1995 (5) SCC 173 and Indian Banks’ Association, Bombay & Ors. Versus Devkala Consultancy Service & Ors. 2004 (11) SCC 1 also do not support the contentions as raised by the counsel for the petitioner in the present case. It would thus be seen that this Court has taken consistent view on this aspect. Versus State of U.P. & Ors., 1995 (5) SCC 173 and Indian Banks’ Association, Bombay & Ors. Versus Devkala Consultancy Service & Ors. 2004 (11) SCC 1 also do not support the contentions as raised by the counsel for the petitioner in the present case. It would thus be seen that this Court has taken consistent view on this aspect. Reliance placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Gupta Versus Yashwant Kumar Ahirwar (supra) is misplaced both on facts and law. In that case, while dealing with a case relating to special recruitment drive for filling up vacant reserved posts of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, where respondents had advertised eight posts for reserved category in Scheduled Caste and eight posts for the handicapped persons, respondents showed the reserved categories separately in the body of advertisement. Contradictory stand was taken by the respondents therein. On facts, it was found that State had adopted a policy for filling up the reserved posts for handicapped persons as special drive and therefore, such a reservation fall within clause (1) of Article 16 of the Constitution of India had nothing to do with the object and purpose sought to be achieved by the reasons of “clause (4)” thereof. In that context, it was held that a disabled is a disabled and the question of making any further reservation on the basis of caste, creed or region ordinarily may not arise as they constitute a special class. Though the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner finds support from the decision of the Division Bench judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Saroj Dehariya Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), in the light of consistent view taken by the Division Benches of this Court in several decisions, which have been referred to and cited hereinabove, we are not inclined to take a different view on the basis of decision in the case of Saroj Dehariya Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh. In the result, these petitions fail and are hereby dismissed.” 10. In the result, these petitions fail and are hereby dismissed.” 10. This Court observes that in the present case, the petitioners, claiming themselves as eligible for the aforesaid post in their respective categories, applied for the same and appeared in the examination in question, and owing to their respective benchmark disabilities while filling the application form, the petitioners opted for not appearing in the ‘Type Writing Test on Computer’ and appeared only in the written examination, whereafter the respondents released the selection list and the petitioners names were not found in the said list, and resultantly, the petitioners were not called for documents verification. 11. This Court further observes that the minimum qualifying marks/cut off marks in the written examination for the General Category were 196.3451, whereas the petitioner in CW No.8552/2023 secured 188.5598 marks and the cut off marks for EWS Category were 224.5384 marks and the petitioner in CW No.8729/2023 secured 151.7470 marks, thus it is evident from the respective results of the petitioners that both of them could not secure the required scores to qualify for appearing in the Typewriting Test on computer. 11.1. This Court also observes that only those candidates, who were declared qualified in the written examination and opted ‘NO’ for the Typewriting test on Computer in the application form were exempted from appearing in the said Test due to physical disability, and thereafter, the aggregate marks of the written examination and the Typewriting test, were to be calculated, whereafter the selected candidates were to be called for documents verification. 11.2. This Court further observes that the marks obtained at various stages of selection process are not reflective of final merit of a candidate, but considered for further participation in the next round. However in the present case, the petitioners did not even qualify the written examination in their respective categories. 12. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and in view of the afore-quoted judgment rendered in Rohitash Kumar Jat (supra) as well as looking into the factual matrix of the present case and the present controversy already being settled in a plethora of judgments, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioners in the present petitions. 13. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.