ORDER : D.B. Civil Misc. Application No.162/2024 :- 1. Heard on the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Taking into consideration the short delay and the cause shown in the application, we are inclined to condone the delay. 3. The application is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 124/2024:- 1. Heard. 2. This appeal is directed against the interim-order dated 07.10.2023 passed by learned Single Judge whereby, the learned Single Judge has allowed the respondents-petitioners to participate in the process of interview. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants would firstly submit that in earlier round of litigation on another issue, when an order was passed by this Court as between the same parties, the writ petitioners filed Special Leave to Appeal in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court clearly ordered that the interviews are not interdicted though the appointment shall not be made without the leave of the Court. He would submit that after remand of the case by the Division Bench to the Single Bench for consideration of other issues in the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has now entertained another application for stay and has allowed the respondents to participate in the process of interview. He would submit that insofar as preparation of merit list of candidates against the general category seats is concerned, the candidates belonging to reserved category cannot claim placement on the basis that they have obtained marks more than the general category candidates because the marks were awarded only for the purpose of screening. Therefore, the law laid down by this Court in the case of Sunita Meena Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Anr. (DBCWP No.1244/2022) dated 20.04.2022 is applicable. He would further submit that if the candidates are allowed to appear in the interview provisionally, it may derail the process of selection. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the matter which is now pending in the Supreme Court, arisen out of an order dated 19.05.2023 passed in a writ appeal which was confined only to one issue which was decided by the learned Single Judge leaving all other issues. He would submit that vide order dated 19.05.2023, Division Bench remanded the case for consideration on all other pending issues. He would submit that vide order dated 19.05.2023, Division Bench remanded the case for consideration on all other pending issues. At that stage, the writ petitioners raised an arguable issue that as the writ petitioners had obtained more marks as compared to general category candidates, as against merit list of general category candidates, they are entitled to be placed in the list and could not be denied placement merely because they happen to be the reserved category candidates. He would submit that as the marks of the objective multiple tests are going to be added in the final result, the present case is governed by the order passed by this Court in the case of Rajat Yadav & Ors. vs. Rajasthan High Court & Anr. (DBCWP No.7564/2023) decided on 18/09/2023 and not Sunita Meena (supra). 5. The respondents filed writ petition calling in question the action of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in inviting qualified candidates for interview in connection with different recruitments without adding weightage marks towards academic performance. While challenging the action of the RPSC as aforesaid other issues were also raised in the writ petition. Learned Single Judge passed an order on 08.03.2022 in favour of the writ petitioners holding that the weightage marks on the basis of academic performance are required to be added before calling the candidates for interview. This order was assailed by the RPSC by filing writ appeals which were decided by a Division Bench vide common order dated 19.05.2023. 6. Division Bench of this Court held that the weightage marks on the basis of academic performance could not be allowed to be added before holding interview. The writ appeals were accordingly allowed. However, noticing that there were many other issues raised in the writ petition calling in question the action of the RPSC other than the issue relating to addition of weightage marks of academic performance before calling for interview, the writ petitions were restored and remanded for adjudication on issues which were left open except the one decided in the appeals. 7. Aggrieved by the order dated 19.05.2023 passed by this Court, the writ petitioners filed SLP before the Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 06.10.2023 issued notices and further directed that the interviews are not interdicted though appointment could not be made without the leave of the Court. 8. 7. Aggrieved by the order dated 19.05.2023 passed by this Court, the writ petitioners filed SLP before the Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 06.10.2023 issued notices and further directed that the interviews are not interdicted though appointment could not be made without the leave of the Court. 8. It appears that as the order of this Court directing restoration of the writ petition and decision on other issues was not stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, learned Single Judge proceeded with the writ petition taking up for consideration other issues which were raised in the writ petition. At that stage, the writ petitioners filed stay application seeking a prayer that they may also be allowed to be provisionally appear in the interview mainly on the submission that the writ petitioners were those who had obtained more marks than the general category candidates and were being excluded from the process of selection. In support of that case, they have relied upon the verdict of this Court in Rajat Yadav (supra). 9. Learned counsel for the RPSC on the other hand relied upon the decision of Sunita Meena (supra) and would submit that the multiple choice based examination being in the nature of screening test, the claim of the petitioners for being placed in the merit list and for being called for interview only on the strength that they had obtained more marks than the general category candidates, does not merit acceptance. 10. Learned Single Judge on a detailed consideration and finding a prime facie case made out in favour of the writ petitioners, have allowed them to provisionally appear in the interview. 11. We are of the view that an arguable and serious case has been raised before the learned Single Judge. We also take note of the fact that the marks which have been obtained by the candidates in the test are going to be added for the preparation of final merit list. Therefore, prima-facie present does not appear to be a case governed by the order in Sunita Meena (supra) but more a case governed by the decision of this Court in Rajat Yadav (supra). 12. It is not a case where the learned Single Judge has stayed the process of selection. The interviews are not being interdicted. The interim order only allowed the writ petitioners also to provisionally appear in the interview. 13. 12. It is not a case where the learned Single Judge has stayed the process of selection. The interviews are not being interdicted. The interim order only allowed the writ petitioners also to provisionally appear in the interview. 13. In view of the above consideration, we are not inclined to interfere with the interim order. 14. The appeal is dismissed.