JUDGMENT : (G. Narendar, J.) : 1. Heard Sri. Mattegunta Sudhir, the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Advocate General for the official respondents and Sri. Narra Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents. 2. In all the three Writ Appeals, the controversy centres on the selection of Anganwadi Workers to the position of the Extension Officers, Grade-II. 3. The short question that was canvassed before the learned Single Judge is that the official respondent No.3, who conducted the proceedings for selection of the Extension Officers, Grade-II has omitted to comply with the notification dated 05.09.2022. Under the said notification, as per the Paragraph No.7, the total marks for selection was fixed as 50 and out of the said total, 45 marks was assigned for the objective test and 05 marks for proficiency test i.e., proficiency in spoken English. 4. The respondent No.3 instead of conducting the proficiency test in spoken English for all the candidates, has acted arbitrarily and restricted the same to a limited number and has not conducted any proficiency test for the petitioners. That the same being contrary to the notified selection process, the selection process stands vitiated and warrants interference at the hands of the Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants would take us through the notification dated 05.09.2022 and the procedure set out therein for recruitment of Extension Officers, Grade-II. There is no dispute with regard to the qualification and eligibility of both the petitioners and the private respondents to participate in the process. The eligibility criteria and the scheme of examination and the centers have been notified separately. Under the said notification, dated 05.09.2022, the process of selection has been stipulated as under; Procedure of Selection: “The selection of candidates for appointment to the posts will be made by OMR based (objective type) examination and Spoken English Proficiency. The final selection for these posts will be based on marks secured in the examination.” 6. The process of evaluating the proficiency of the candidate is found in paragraph No.2 of the notification, which reads as under: “2. The Department will conduct offline OMR based objective type examination, Spoken English Videos of merit list candidates will be examined.” 7. Thus, even as per the notification, the selection authority has clearly notified that only the videos of the candidates in the merit list would be examined. 8. The Department will conduct offline OMR based objective type examination, Spoken English Videos of merit list candidates will be examined.” 7. Thus, even as per the notification, the selection authority has clearly notified that only the videos of the candidates in the merit list would be examined. 8. Apparently, different cut-off marks have been adopted based on the merit list, for different categories of candidates. The respondent No.2-The Director of Women Development and Child Welfare Department in his affidavit has set out the tabular charts showing the cut off marks in final selection. The below tables are in respective the three Writ Appeals respectively, which reads as follows: CATEGORY CUT OFF MARKS CATEGORY CUT OFF MARKS CATEGORY CUT OFF MARKS OC 40.25 OC 40.50 OC 40.25 SC 37.75 SC 40.50 SC 37.75 ST 33 ST 38.25 ST 33 BC-A 39 BC-A 40.00 BC-A 39 BC-B 38 BC-B 39.75 BC-B 38 BC-C 35 BC-C 38 BC-C 35 BC-D 37.25 BC-D 40.5 BC-D 37.25 BC-E 37.25 BC-E 39.25 BC-E 37.25 EWS 38.25 EWS 40.5 EWS 38.25 OH 37.75 PHC 22.25 OH 37.75 HH 31.25 HH 31.25 VH 25.50 VH 25.50 9. As contended by the learned Additional Advocate General, the candidates who have been selected i.e., the private respondents herein, are all candidates who have secured higher marks than the petitioners (in their respective categories) in the written test, and the maximum marks that could be awarded under the proficiency test is only 05 marks. 10. Assuming for the sake of argument that even the full 05 marks awarded to the petitioners, they would not be securing more than the private respondents. The submission merits consideration. Though the case canvassed by the appellant raised a doubt in the mind of the Court yet the pleadings as set out in the counter affidavit more particularly paragraph No.7 corroborates the submission canvassed by the learned Additional Advocate General, that even if the entire 05 marks are awarded to the petitioners, they would not be scoring more than the candidates in the merit list i.e., the marks secured by them in the objective type test alone. The difference in the marks as set out in paragraph No.7 is quite huge except in respect of one candidate where the difference is about 3.5 marks. 11. In this regard, we have also secured the spoken English video and verified the same. The difference in the marks as set out in paragraph No.7 is quite huge except in respect of one candidate where the difference is about 3.5 marks. 11. In this regard, we have also secured the spoken English video and verified the same. The performance as per the video being satisfactory, definitely the merit list candidates would have been entitled to some marks in the English proficiency test also, then the petitioners would be nowhere near the merit list candidates. 12. In that view, the selection of the said private respondents appears to be justified and it cannot said that this cast a cloud over the selection process. Even assuming that the respondents have erred in not conducting proficiency test for all the candidates, yet it cannot be gainfully argued that, had the test been conducted, they would have secured enough marks to leapfrog the private respondents and move to higher position in the order of merit. Even if such proficiency test is ordered at this stage, it would only result in wasteful expenditure of State resources and as rightly contended by the learned Additional Advocate General, it would not enable the respondents to steal a march over the private respondents in the merit list. 13. The objection raised with regard to not inviting the petitioners for viva voce in other words not awarding marks for the English proficiency videos presented by them is an issue that has been well answered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in P.V. Indiresan v. Union of India, (2007) 13 SCC 300 . A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Pilla Suneetha v. A.P.P.S.C., 2024 SCC OnLine AP 572 has considered a similar issue in paras.16 and 17, wherein it is observed as follows: “16. There is no dispute with regard to the facts recorded hereinabove either with regard to the participation in the selection process or with regard to the marks secured by the candidate i.e., the appellant herein. As the determination of the issue involves an interpretational exercise, this Court is of the opinion that it would be imperative to analyse the concept of ‘qualifying marks’ in juxtaposition with the concept of ‘cut off marks’ and ‘eligibility criteria’, which feature predominantly in service jurisprudence, more so, in relation to appointment to a civil post. As the determination of the issue involves an interpretational exercise, this Court is of the opinion that it would be imperative to analyse the concept of ‘qualifying marks’ in juxtaposition with the concept of ‘cut off marks’ and ‘eligibility criteria’, which feature predominantly in service jurisprudence, more so, in relation to appointment to a civil post. In this direction, this Court would do well to analyse the illustration of law drawn by the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.V. Indiresan (2) v. Union of India, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has conducted a detailed examination of the concepts of eligibility/qualifying marks, cut off marks, minimum eligibility marks, etc. In this regard, this Court places reliance on the exposition of law and the relevant paragraphs are culled out and reproduced herein below for the sake of convenience: “17. The appellant (and other intervenors who claim to be concerned about excellence in education) contend that “cut-off marks” are different from “eligibility marks” or “qualifying marks”. There is no dispute that eligibility marks refers to the minimum marks a candidate is required to have in the last qualifying examination (for example, 10 + 2 examination for admissions to a Bachelor's degree programme or the graduation examination for admissions to a postgraduate programme) as a condition precedent for seeking admission to the higher course of study to which the appellant seeks admission. Similarly, there is no dispute that qualifying marks refers to the minimum marks required to be secured in the special entrance examination, that may be held to determine the inter se merit of candidates from different universities/sources and to ensure that candidates to be admitted possess the minimum academic standards required or expected for a special course of study; and it is only those securing the qualifying marks in the entrance examination, where it is a part of the admission process, who will be included in the merit list for admission, or will become eligible for being called for viva voce. (For example, it is stated that in Delhi University, admissions to degree courses, except for English and Journalism courses, are on the basis of “eligibility marks”, that is, the prescribed minimum marks in 10 + 2 examination. Those who seek admission in degree courses in English and Journalism will have to participate in special entrance examinations. (For example, it is stated that in Delhi University, admissions to degree courses, except for English and Journalism courses, are on the basis of “eligibility marks”, that is, the prescribed minimum marks in 10 + 2 examination. Those who seek admission in degree courses in English and Journalism will have to participate in special entrance examinations. A candidate seeking admission to Bachelor's degree in Journalism is required to have eligibility marks of 70% in 10 + 2 examination and also pass the entrance examination; and a candidate seeking admission to Bachelor's degree in English is required to have eligibility marks of 60% in 10 + 2 examination and also pass the entrance examination.) (underlining by this Court) 20. In English language, many words have different meanings and a word can be used in more than one sense. Every dictionary gives several meanings for each word. The proper use of a dictionary lies in choosing the appropriate meaning to the word, with reference to the context in which the word is used. We cannot mechanically apply all and every meanings given in a dictionary. Nor can we choose an inappropriate meaning that the word may carry and then try to change the context in which it is used. The context in which the word is used determines the meaning of the word. A randomly chosen meaning for the word should not change the context in which the word is used. This is the fundamental principle relating to use of words to convey a thought or explain a position or describe an event. We may demonstrate this with reference to the dictionary meanings of the word “cut-off”. (underlining by this Court) 21. Reader's Digest Word Power Dictionary (1996 Edn., p. 195) gives the following meanings and illustrative uses with reference to such meanings, for the word “cut-off”: “Cut off *to remove Cut off the thorns on the stem otherwise you will prick yourself. *to prevent from leaving or reaching a place; to be isolated The village was cut off by floods. I feel so cut off when I stay on my parents' farm. * to disconnect or stop supplying something He was cut off before he could finish his telephone conversation. * to disinherit He was cut off without a cent. * to block We must cut off all escape routes. I feel so cut off when I stay on my parents' farm. * to disconnect or stop supplying something He was cut off before he could finish his telephone conversation. * to disinherit He was cut off without a cent. * to block We must cut off all escape routes. * expiry, final deadline Post your entry now, because the cut-off date is today.” 22. Collins Dictionary of the English Language (1979 Edn., p. 369) gives fourteen meanings to the word “cut-off”: “1. To remove by cutting. 2. To intercept or interrupt something, esp. a telephone conversation. 3. To discontinue the supply of : to cut off the water. 4. To bring to an end. 5. To deprive of rights; disinherit : she was cut off without a penny. 6. To sever or separate : she was cut off from her family. 7. To occupy a position so as to prevent or obstruct (a retreat or escape). 8. (a) The act of cutting off; limit or termination. (b) (as modifier) : the cut off point. 9. Chiefly US : a route or way that is shorter than the usual one; short cut. 10. A device to terminate the flow of a fluid in a pipe or duct. 11. The remnant of metal, plastic, etc., left after parts have been machined or trimmed. 12. Electronics (a) The value of voltage, frequency, etc. below or above which an electronic device cannot function efficiently. (b) (as modifier) : cut off voltage. 13. A channel cutting across the neck of a meander, which leave an oxbow lake. 14. Another name for oxbow (the lake).” 32. We find that this Court has been regularly and routinely using the words “cut-off marks” to describe the minimum marks required to be secured in the qualifying examination for being eligible for admission or to describe the minimum qualifying marks to be obtained in an entrance examination. As this Court has routinely used the words “cut-off marks” to refer to “eligibility marks” or “qualifying marks”, whenever this Court uses the words “cut-off marks”, their meaning would depend upon the context. The words may refer to either the minimum marks to be secured in the qualifying examination or the entrance examination to be eligible for admission, or to the marks secured by the last candidate admitted in a particular category. The words may refer to either the minimum marks to be secured in the qualifying examination or the entrance examination to be eligible for admission, or to the marks secured by the last candidate admitted in a particular category. We may refer to some of the cases where this Court has used the term “cut-off marks” to refer to the eligibility marks or qualifying marks. (underlining by this Court) 32.1. In Jeevak Almast (Dr.) v. Union of India [ (1988) 4 SCC 27 ] this Court observed that “the scheme contained the provision that the cut-off base for selection for admission shall be 50% marks”, while referring to the All-India Entrance Examination. This clearly demonstrates that the words “cut-off” base was used to refer to the qualifying marks, the minimum eligibility marks in the qualifying examination. 32.2. In Ajay Kumar Agrawal v. State of U.P. [(1991) 1 SCC 636] this Court while referring to the minimum marks required for being eligible for admission to postgraduate course described the minimum qualifying marks in the qualifying examination, as “cut-off base” marks. We extract below the relevant portion as follows : (SCC p. 642, para 11) “11. It is not disputed that in Uttar Pradesh the prevailing practice was a 50% base for allowing postgraduate study to doctors with MBBS qualifications but taking their University examination as the base without any separate selection test, it is not the case of any of the parties before us that the selection is bad for any other reason. We are of the view that it is in general interest that the 50% cut-off base as has been adopted should be sustained.” 32.3. In State of U.P. v. Dr. Anupam Gupta [1993 Supp (1) SCC 594] this Court extracted the following provision from a government order relating to eligibility marks for admission which was minimum of 50% for general category candidates and 40% for reserved category candidates : (SCCp. 598, para 5) “5. (2) This examination shall have 100% objective type questions. The eligibility criteria for admission to postgraduate courses shall be 50% minimum qualifying marks for candidates of general category and 40% minimum qualifying marks for candidates of reserved categories (SC/ST).” Thereafter it used the words cut-off marks to refer to the minimum eligibility marks for general category candidates and reserved category candidates : (Dr. The eligibility criteria for admission to postgraduate courses shall be 50% minimum qualifying marks for candidates of general category and 40% minimum qualifying marks for candidates of reserved categories (SC/ST).” Thereafter it used the words cut-off marks to refer to the minimum eligibility marks for general category candidates and reserved category candidates : (Dr. Anupam Gupta case [1993 Supp (1) SCC 594], SCC p. 601, para 9) “9. … Thus it could be seen that this Court consistently laid down the criteria for conducting entrance examination to the postgraduate degree and diploma courses in medicine and the best among the talented candidates would be eligible for admission. 50% cut-off marks was also held to be valid to achieve excellence in postgraduate speciality. Accordingly we uphold the prescription of 50% cut-off marks for general candidates and 40% for SCs and STs together with 1.65% weightage of total marks i.e. 50 marks in total in entrance examination as constitutional and valid.” 32.4. In Ombir Singh v. State of U.P. [1993 Supp (2) SCC 64] this Court while upholding the prescription of 50% and 40% respectively as the minimum eligibility marks in the qualifying examination followed the decisions in Ajay Kumar Agrawal [(1991) 1 SCC 636] and Dr. Anupam Gupta [1993 Supp (1) SCC 594] by relying upon and reiterating the passages in those decisions which use the words cut-off marks to refer to qualifying marks. We extract below the relevant portions of the said decision : (Ombir Singh case [1993 Supp (2) SCC 64], SCC pp. 66-67, paras 2-4) “2. … So far as the validity of the admission rules fixing 50% marks for the general category candidates and 40% marks for the SC/ST category candidates to be obtained at the entrance examination as minimum qualifying marks for being eligible for admission to the postgraduate medical courses, the same are not subject to any challenge … It may be further mentioned that this Court in Ajay Kumar Agrawal v. State of U.P. [(1991) 1 SCC 636] observed as under : (SCC p. 642, para 11) ‘11. It is not disputed that in Uttar Pradesh the prevailing practice was a 50% base for allowing postgraduate study to doctors with MBBS qualifications but taking their University examination as the base without any separate selection test, it is not the case of any of the parties before us that the selection is bad for any other reason. We are of the view that it is in general interest that the 50% cut-off base as has been adopted should be sustained.’ 3. The matter again came up for consideration before this Court and in State of U.P. v. Dr. Anupam Gupta [1993 Supp (1) SCC 594] it was held as under : (SCC p. 601, para 9) ‘9. … Thus it could be seen that this Court consistently laid down the criteria for conducting entrance examination to the postgraduate degree and diploma courses in medicine and the best among the talented candidates would be eligible for admission. 50% cut-off marks was also held to be valid to achieve excellence in postgraduate speciality. Accordingly we uphold the prescription of 50% cut-off marks for general candidates and 40% for SCs and STs together with 1.65% weightage of total marks i.e. 50 marks in total in entrance examination as constitutional and valid.’ 4. Thus, we further hold that any challenge to the above rule laying down minimum percentage of marks for eligibility for admission to postgraduate courses is no longer res integra.” 32.5. In Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi [ (2008) 7 SCC 11 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 203] we find that this Court has used the words “cut-off marks” to refer to describe “minimum qualifying marks” following Justice Shetty Commission Report which also used the term “cut-off marks” while referring to “minimum qualifying marks”. In that case, the advertisement inviting applications stated that “minimum qualifying marks in the written examination shall be 55% for general candidates and 50% for SC and ST candidates”. The subsequent resolution of the Full Court provided that the “minimum qualifying marks in viva voce will be 55% for general candidates and 50% for SC/ST candidates. This Court while considering the correctness of the said resolution observed thus : (SCC p. 18, paras 17-18) “17. The subsequent resolution of the Full Court provided that the “minimum qualifying marks in viva voce will be 55% for general candidates and 50% for SC/ST candidates. This Court while considering the correctness of the said resolution observed thus : (SCC p. 18, paras 17-18) “17. … This Court further notices that Hon'ble Justice Shetty Commission has recommended in its Report that: ‘The viva voce test should be in a thorough and scientific manner and it should [be taken] anything between 25 to 30 minutes for each candidate. What is recommended by the Commission is that the viva voce test shall carry 50 marks and there shall be no cut-off marks in viva voce test.’ (underlining by this Court). 18. This Court notices that in All India Judges’ Assn. (3) v. Union of India [ (2002) 4 SCC 247 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 508] subject to the various modifications indicated in the said decision, the other recommendations of the Shetty Commission were accepted by this Court. It means that prescription of cut-off marks at viva voce test by the respondent was not in accordance with the decision of this Court.” 32.6. In K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. [ (2008) 3 SCC 512 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 841] this Court used the words “cut-off percentage” to refer to minimum qualifying marks. The relevant portion is extracted below : (SCC p. 517, para 8) “8. … The sub-committee was also of the view that apart from applying the minimum marks for the written examination for determining the eligibility of the candidates to appear in the interview the same cut-off percentage should be applied for interview marks, and those who fail to secure such minimum marks in the interview should be considered as having failed.” 33. This Court also used the word “threshold marks” to describe the minimum qualifying marks. In Parveen Jindal v. State of Haryana [1993 Supp (4) SCC 70 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 185 : (1994) 26 ATC 230] this Court referred to Rule 7 of the Haryana Service of Engineers Class I, PWD (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1964 which prescribes the qualifying marks, relevant portion of which is extracted below : (SCC pp. In Parveen Jindal v. State of Haryana [1993 Supp (4) SCC 70 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 185 : (1994) 26 ATC 230] this Court referred to Rule 7 of the Haryana Service of Engineers Class I, PWD (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1964 which prescribes the qualifying marks, relevant portion of which is extracted below : (SCC pp. 76-77, para 9) “Provided that a candidate shall not be considered qualified for appointment, unless he obtains not less than forty per cent marks in each subject and also not less than fifty per cent marks in the aggregate, and no candidate who does not obtain the qualifying marks shall be called for interview by the Commission.” (underlining by this Court). This Court, while referring to the contentions of the appellant therein, used the word “threshold” marks to refer to the qualifying marks, as is evident from the following passage : (Parveen Jindal case [1993 Supp (4) SCC 70 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 185 : (1994) 26 ATC 230], SCC p. 76, para 8) “Whereas the rules say that a candidate obtaining 50% marks in the written test is entitled to be called for viva voce, the Commission has arbitrarily prescribed a threshold of 65% which it had no jurisdiction to do. As a result of the said arbitrary stipulation several of the appellants have been denied the opportunity of selection. The Commission must now be directed to make selections afresh for all the three wings/branches in the Public Works Department.” 42. It should be noted that neither Preeti Srivastava [ (1999) 7 SCC 120 ], nor Ashoka Kumar Thakur [ (2008) 6 SCC 1 ] nor any other decision of this Court required that the reserved category candidates should possess marks which are within a narrow bandwidth below the cut-off marks for the last student admitted in the general category. All the decisions spoke of difference/disparity in regard to eligibility marks and qualifying marks. Therefore, the context in which Bhandari, J. concluded that “cut-off marks for OBCs should be set no lower than 10% marks below general category” (vide paras 535 and 629) of Ashoka Kumar Thakur [ (2008) 6 SCC 1 ], he meant that eligibility/qualifying marks for OBCs should be set not lower than 10% below the eligibility/qualifying marks of general category. Therefore, the context in which Bhandari, J. concluded that “cut-off marks for OBCs should be set no lower than 10% marks below general category” (vide paras 535 and 629) of Ashoka Kumar Thakur [ (2008) 6 SCC 1 ], he meant that eligibility/qualifying marks for OBCs should be set not lower than 10% below the eligibility/qualifying marks of general category. Similar is the position regarding the observation of Pasayat, J. in para 358 of Ashoka Kumar Thakur [ (2008) 6 SCC 1 ]. Pasayat, J. observed that the cut-off marks for OBCs should be fixed by extending 5 grace marks, that is, 5 marks below the minimum eligibility marks fixed for general categories of students. We fail to understand how the words “minimum eligibility marks fixed for general categories of students” used by Pasayat, J. can be read as “cut-off marks” of general category, that is, marks secured by the last candidate admitted under general category. We, therefore, hold that the words “maximum cut-off marks for OBCs be 10% below the cut-off marks of general category candidates” in the order dated 14-10-2008 [ (2009) 7 SCC 300 ] of the Constitution Bench meant that if the minimum eligibility/qualifying marks prescribed for general category candidates was 50%, the minimum eligibility/qualifying marks for OBCs should be 45%. (underlining by this Court). 43. The appellant canvasses the continuance of the procedure adopted by JNU during 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. What in effect was that procedure? During those years, JNU would fix the minimum eligibility marks as say 40% when the admission programme is announced. JNU would apply it only to general category candidates. It would not say what was the minimum eligibility marks for OBC candidates, but would decide the same only after all the general category seats were filled, by fixing a band of marks up to 10% below the marks secured by the last candidate admitted under the general category. If a OBC candidate secured the marks within that band, he would be given admission. Otherwise even if he had secured 70%, as against the minimum of 40% he would not get a seat, if the band of marks was higher. Such a procedure, was arbitrary and discriminatory, apart from being unknown in regard to admissions to educational institutions. 44. If a OBC candidate secured the marks within that band, he would be given admission. Otherwise even if he had secured 70%, as against the minimum of 40% he would not get a seat, if the band of marks was higher. Such a procedure, was arbitrary and discriminatory, apart from being unknown in regard to admissions to educational institutions. 44. The minimum eligibility marks for admission to a course of study is always declared before the admission programme for an academic year is commenced. An institution may say that for admissions to its course, say Bachelor's degree course in Science, the candidate should have successfully completed a particular course of study, say 10 + 2, with certain special subjects. Or it can say that the candidate should have secured certain prescribed minimum marks in the said qualifying examination, which may be more than the percentage required for passing such examination. For example, if a candidate may pass a 10 + 2 examination by securing 35% marks, an institution can say at its discretion that to be eligible for being admitted to its course of study, the candidate should have passed with at least a minimum of 40% or 50% or 60%. Whatever be the marks so prescribed, it should be uniform to all applicants and a prospective applicant should know, before he makes an application, whether he is eligible for admission or not. But the “cut-off” procedure followed by JNU during those days had the effect of rewriting the eligibility criteria, after the applications were received from eligible candidates. If the minimum eligibility prescribed for an admission in an institution was 50% and a candidate had secured 50%, he could not be denied admission, if a seat was available, based on a criterion ascertained after the last date for submission of applications. (underlining by this Court) 45. No candidate who fulfils the prescribed eligibility criteria and whose rank in the merit list is within the number of seats available for admission, can be turned down, by saying that he should have secured some higher marks based on the marks secured by some other category of students. (underlining by this Court) A factor which is neither known nor ascertained at the time of declaring the admission programme cannot be used to disentitle a candidate to admission, who is otherwise entitled for admission. (double underlining by this Court). (underlining by this Court) A factor which is neither known nor ascertained at the time of declaring the admission programme cannot be used to disentitle a candidate to admission, who is otherwise entitled for admission. (double underlining by this Court). If the total number of seats in a course is 154 and the number of seats reserved for OBCs is 42, all the seats should be filled by OBC students in the order of merit from the merit list of OBC candidates possessing the minimum eligibility marks prescribed for admission (subject to any requirement for entrance examination). When an eligible OBC candidate is available, converting an OBC reservation seat to general category is not permissible. 52. The words “cut-off marks” have been used thrice in the second paragraph of the order dated 14-10-2008 [ (2009) 7 SCC 300 ] containing the operative direction. They are used in the first sentence of the paragraph while posing the question for decision, that is, “what should be the extent of cut-off marks for admission of students of OBCs in CEIs”. They are used in the second sentence of the paragraph while giving the answer to the question posed, that is, “we make it clear that the maximum cut-off marks for OBCs be 10% below the cut-off marks of general category candidates”. The words “cut-off marks” occurring in three places in the second paragraph of the order dated 14-10-2008 [ (2009) 7 SCC 300 ] have three distinct and different meanings: 53. The order dated 14-10-2008 [ (2009) 7 SCC 300 ] means that where minimum eligibility marks in the qualifying examinations are prescribed for admission, say as 50% for general category candidates, the minimum eligibility marks for OBCs should not be less than 45% (that is, 50 less 10% of 50). The minimum eligibility marks for OBCs can be fixed at any number between 45 and 50, at the discretion of the institution. Or, where the candidates are required to take an entrance examination and if the qualifying marks in the entrance examination is fixed as 40% for general category candidates, the qualifying marks for OBC candidates should not be less than 36% (that is, 40 less 10% of 40). 54. Or, where the candidates are required to take an entrance examination and if the qualifying marks in the entrance examination is fixed as 40% for general category candidates, the qualifying marks for OBC candidates should not be less than 36% (that is, 40 less 10% of 40). 54. We, therefore, dispose of this appeal, affirming the decision dated 7-9-2010 [Apurva v. Union of India, WP (C) No. 4857 of 2010 order dated 7-9-2010 (Del)] of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, subject to the clarifications/observations above, and subject to the following conditions: (i) In regard to the admissions for 2011-2012, if any Central educational institution has already determined the “cut-off marks” for OBCs with reference to the marks secured by the last candidate in the general category, and has converted the unfilled OBC seats to general category seats and allotted the seats to general category candidates, such admissions shall not be disturbed. But where the process of conversion and allotment is not completed, the OBC seats shall be filled by OBC candidates. (ii) If in any Central educational institution, the OBC reservation seats remain vacant, such institutions shall fill the said seats with OBC students. Only if OBC candidates possessing the minimum eligibility/qualifying marks are not available in the OBC merit list, the OBC seats shall be converted into general category seats. (iii) If the last date for admissions has expired, the last date for admissions shall be extended till 31-8-2011 as a special case, to enable admissions to the vacant OBC seats.” 17. Only if OBC candidates possessing the minimum eligibility/qualifying marks are not available in the OBC merit list, the OBC seats shall be converted into general category seats. (iii) If the last date for admissions has expired, the last date for admissions shall be extended till 31-8-2011 as a special case, to enable admissions to the vacant OBC seats.” 17. On a reading of para 17, it is apparent that the concept of qualifying marks has been equated with the marks that a candidate is required to secure when the selection process involves written examination to entitle the candidate to progress to the next stage of the selection process and cut off marks stand apart from the eligibility marks and the eligibility marks is equated with a pre-qualification standard i.e., a merit that the candidate is supposed to possess to even qualify for the participation or in other words to be permitted to enter into the race and the distinction between the eligibility marks and the qualifying marks is that both are pre-determined and stipulated at the very beginning itself, to dilate further eligibility marks or minimum marks that a candidate must have secured for even for his application to be considered or even to make the application, whereas the qualifying marks are the minimum marks that the candidate is supposed to secure in the entrance examination, if such entrance examination is part of the selection process and then only, such of those candidates who secure the minimum qualifying marks would be allowed to progress to the next stage of the selection process.” 14. A reading of the above, it is apparent that omission or decision of the selection committee to not invite the candidates, who have secured less than the cut-off marks, is no more an illegality and the same does not in any manner vitiate the proceedings. In that view also, the contention of the appellants is misplaced. 15. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference. 16. Accordingly, the Writ Appeals are dismissed. No costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these Appeals shall stand closed.