JUDGMENT : 1. In the present batch of writ petitions, the core controversy requiring adjudication predominantly pertains to the legality and validity of the impugned result dated 17.12.2024 declared by the respondents in pursuance to the examination conducted in furtherance to the advertisement dated 20.06.2023 whereby the respondent-Board had invited applications for the post of Junior Accountant and Tehsil Revenue Accountant. Although ancillary issues are also raised, the principal question of law revolves around the legality and validity of the impugned result whereby the respondents have included the candidates of Ministerial Employees (hereinafter referred to as ‘ME category’) by treating their candidature in the SC, ST or General category. Having regard to the commonality of issues both in law and in fact, and upon consent being recorded from the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court deems it appropriate to treat SBCWP NO. 278/2025 titled as Mohit Soni and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. as the lead petition for the purposes of this adjudication. 2. It is, however, considered apposite to clarify at the outset that while there may exist factual variances among the individual petitions constituting the present batch, such discrepancies are confined solely to the narrative factual matrices peculiar to each case. They do not impinge upon or detract from the common questions of law which fall for consideration before this Court. Accordingly, the judgment rendered herein shall apply to all the writ petitions connected and heard together with the lead matter, on a mutatis mutandis basis, subject to necessary adaptation to the individual factual contexts where required. 3. Before proceeding to examine the present petitions on their merits, it is imperative to first delineate the foundational facts and the core issues arising therein. A precise appreciation of the factual matrix and procedural background is essential to contextualize the grievances of the petitioners and the legal questions that fall for adjudication. The salient aspects of the petitions are, therefore, summarized as under: FACTUAL NARRATIVE: 4. On 21.09.2022 the respondent-Board issued an advertisement (advertisement no. 9/2022) inviting applications from eligible candidates for the Common Eligibility Test – Graduation Level Examination, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as 'CET'). Consecutively, on 20.06.2023 the respondent-Board issued an advertisement (advertisement no. 2/2023) for recruitment to 5190 posts of Junior Accountant and 198 posts of Tehsil Revenue Accountant. On 21.09.2022 the respondent-Board issued an advertisement (advertisement no. 9/2022) inviting applications from eligible candidates for the Common Eligibility Test – Graduation Level Examination, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as 'CET'). Consecutively, on 20.06.2023 the respondent-Board issued an advertisement (advertisement no. 2/2023) for recruitment to 5190 posts of Junior Accountant and 198 posts of Tehsil Revenue Accountant. Out of the advertised posts, 12.5% of the vacancies under the non-TSP (Tribal Sub-Plan) area, and three (03) posts under the TSP area, were earmarked for reservation in favor of candidates falling under the ME category. 5. After the receipt of application forms, the respondents, on 06.12.2023, declared the cut-off marks based on CET scores. Distinct cutoff marks were prescribed for different categories, namely, General, Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC), Most Backward Classes (MBC), and special categories including the ME category. Notably, the cutoff marks under the ME category were determined at 31.8792, which was substantially lower than the cutoffs prescribed for the other categories. 6. Thereafter, on 20.12.2023, the respondent-Board issued the list of candidates eligible to appear for the Main Examination for the posts of Junior Accountant and Tehsil Revenue Accountant. The said Main Examination was conducted on 11.02.2024. Subsequent thereto, on 27.06.2024, the respondents declared the category-wise cutoffs and called candidates, twice the number of advertised vacancies, for the process of document verification. The cutoffs declared for various categories were illustratively as follows: SC (General) – 447.46, SC (Female) – 319.30, OBC (General) – 555.61, OBC (Female) – 461.30, and for the ME category, the cutoff was fixed at 519.12. 7. The controversy in the present petitions emanated when it came to light that certain candidates, who have initially secured eligibility to appear for the Main Examination by availing the relaxed cutoff of 31.8792 applicable to the ME category, were subsequently considered in categories such as General, SC, ST, OBC, and MBC at the stages of main examination evaluation, document verification, and final selection. The grievance of the petitioners is that these candidates, despite failing to meet the higher cutoff marks determined for the ME category at the stage of the Main Examination (i.e. 519.12), were improperly called for document verification and included in the selection process. 8. The grievance of the petitioners is that these candidates, despite failing to meet the higher cutoff marks determined for the ME category at the stage of the Main Examination (i.e. 519.12), were improperly called for document verification and included in the selection process. 8. Representations were submitted before the respondents by the petitioners and other similarly situated candidates, contending that candidates who had availed themselves of the initial benefit of relaxed standards under the ME category could not subsequently migrate to and claim selection under other reserved categories, and that such action amounted to conferring upon them the impermissible ‘benefit of double reservation’. It was specifically asserted that such candidates, being ineligible in terms of the prescribed cutoffs, ought to be excluded at the stage of document verification itself. 9. In view of the above, the petitioners assail the final merit list declared on 17.12.2024, contending that the same is unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, and violative of their rights, inasmuch as it deprives them and similarly situated candidates of fair consideration for appointment, and confers unlawful advantage upon ineligible candidates. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS: 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the present controversy necessitates adjudication upon substantial questions of law, inter alia, as follows: A. Whether candidates who availed the benefit of relaxed standards under the Common Eligibility Test (CET) should necessarily be retained within the same category at the stage of the Main Written Examination, as mandated by Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Common Eligibility Test Rules, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CET Rules, 2022')? B. Whether a candidate who, by availing the benefit of the ME category, qualified at the CET stage with lower marks, could subsequently seek consideration under their original categories (such as SC, ST, OBC, etc.) during the Main Examination or at later stages of the recruitment process, despite not meeting the requisite cutoff prescribed for the ME category at the Main Examination for the posts of Junior Accountant and Tehsil Revenue Accountant Services? C. In context of such a situation, would the exclusion of a person who is selected under a ME category (Horizontal) in preliminary examination, but in main examination has not qualified under the ME category, while qualifying under the respective vertical reservation category amount to a violation of the fundamental rights as enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 11. 11. In support of these propositions, learned counsel placed substantial reliance upon Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing the constitutional guarantee of equality and protection against arbitrariness in public employment. Attention was drawn to Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Accountant Services Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1963’), as well as the terms of the advertisement dated 20.06.2023, wherein reservation for the ME category was prescribed at 12.5% on a horizontal basis, without any further bifurcation into SC, ST, OBC, or other vertical categories, akin to the reservation pattern applicable for ex-servicemen category. 12. Further reliance was placed upon the proviso to Rule 6 of the CET Rules, 2022, which stipulates that where relaxed standards are applied for calculating lesser than fifteen times the number of advertised posts for the purposes of cutoff for appearance in the Main Examination, such relaxation must operate strictly within the respective category. Consecutively, it was contended that from a bare perusal of the provisions of Rule 6 of the CET Rules, 2022 it can be deduced that the state government has considered the category of ME as a reservation, and the same falls under the category of horizontal reservation as that same cut across all the vertical categories. It was thus contended that the migration or shifting of candidates availing relaxed standards under the ME category into vertical categories (such as SC/ST/OBC) for the purpose of selection was impermissible. Learned counsel had further argued that such an arbitrary and illegal approach by the respondents has seriously prejudiced their rights and fair chance of selection. 13. In continuation, it was urged that applying the principle of literal interpretation, as consistently upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondents were obligated to adhere strictly to the express language of the statute. Nevertheless, in the absence of any ambiguity in the statutory scheme, no deviation or expansive interpretation was permissible. Accordingly, candidates who had availed horizontal reservation benefits (ME category) could not be permitted to subsequently claim vertical reservation benefits (SC/ST/OBC) in violation of the statutory mandate. 14. It was further apprised that the respondent-Board after considering the non-availability of the required number of candidates, lower down the cut-off of the ME candidates, and have set a distinct cut-off of 31.87 marks, in addition to the various vertical cut-offs for vertical reservation. 14. It was further apprised that the respondent-Board after considering the non-availability of the required number of candidates, lower down the cut-off of the ME candidates, and have set a distinct cut-off of 31.87 marks, in addition to the various vertical cut-offs for vertical reservation. Resultant to which, certain candidates who did not meet the requisite cut-off in their respective categories could qualify in the ME Category with significantly lower marks. 15. To further demonstrate the prejudice suffered by the petitioners, counsel placed reliance on the manifest injustice caused to the petitioners whilst permitting the ‘double reservation’ in the selection process in question. The relevant data vis-à-vis the candidates passing the CET examination as per the relaxed standards of ME category is tabulated herein below: Table of candidate passing the CET examination as per relaxed standard of ME: S. No. Name CET Marks and category Main marks and category Cut off marks of category (ME) 1. Priyanka (1684519) SC 107.2575 ME 504.8061 SC 519.1201 2. Moolchand Meghwal (1296846) SC 149.4868 ME 511.1178 519.1201 3. Jasvinder Dhore (1394115) SC 143.2834 ME 470.2289 519.1201 16. In support of the submissions made insofar, learned counsel relied upon a catena of judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, a few amongst others were Arul Nadar vs. Authorised Officer, Land Reforms reported in (1998) 7 SCC 198 , reiterating the principle of strict interpretation of unambiguous statutory provisions; Dadi Jagannadham vs. Jammulu Ramulu & Ors. reported in (2001) 7 SCC 71 emphasizing that plain and unambiguous language must be given its ordinary meaning; Jitendra Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in (2010) 3 SCC 119 , holding that migration between categories after availing of reservation benefits is impermissible; Gaurav Pradhan & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in (2018) 11 SCC 352 , addressing the impermissibility of dual benefits under horizontal and vertical reservations; Ajit Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2000) 1 SCC 430 , reaffirming the constitutional mandate against double reservation and Sourav and Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.: SBCWP No. 20250/2023. 17. It was then contended that if all the CET would be only an eligibility examination, the separate cut-off of different categories, especially ME category would not be disclosed. Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.: SBCWP No. 20250/2023. 17. It was then contended that if all the CET would be only an eligibility examination, the separate cut-off of different categories, especially ME category would not be disclosed. Moreover, disclosing category wise cut-off in CET Examination and taking fifteen times candidates for respective categories itself show that in the final recruitment examination fifteen times candidates will compete within themselves. 18. In view of the foregoing, it was vehemently urged that the impugned selection process and the final merit list dated 17.12.2024, insofar as it permits such impermissible migration and confers unlawful dual benefits, deserves to be quashed and set aside as being unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS: a) Submissions made by counsel representing the respondent-State and its instrumentalities: 19. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the respondents drew the attention of this Court to the foundational and material facts relevant for adjudication in the present batch of writ petitions. It was submitted that pursuant to the initial advertisement dated 21.09.2022, an amended requisition (Arthana) was communicated by the respondents vide letter dated 26.12.2022 to the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board” or "RSSB"), requisitioning 5190 posts, inclusive of 3267 vacancies for the post of Junior Accountant. In furtherance thereof, a fresh advertisement dated 20.06.2023 was issued by the Board, in conformity with the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Subordinate Accounts Service Rules, 1963 and the Rajasthan Scheduled Area Subordinate Ministerial and Class IV Service (Recruitment and Other Conditions of Service) Rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of2014”). 20. Learned counsel further apprised the Court that the entire selection process in question was conducted and supervised exclusively by the respondent-Board (RSSB) without any interference or role of the State Government. It was contended that every procedural aspect from the issuance of advertisement, amendment of categories, conducting of examinations, to the declaration of final results was administered solely under the aegis of the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board. 21. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Board submitted that the rules governing the selection process, along with the terms and conditions applicable thereto, were explicitly enunciated in the advertisement itself. 21. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Board submitted that the rules governing the selection process, along with the terms and conditions applicable thereto, were explicitly enunciated in the advertisement itself. All candidates, including the petitioners herein, were fully cognizant of these conditions prior to submission of their respective online application forms. It was urged that the petitioners, having voluntarily participated in the selection process with full knowledge of the governing rules and conditions, and having been unsuccessful therein, cannot now be permitted to assail the process. Accordingly, it was contended that the instant petitions are liable to be dismissed in limine, being barred by the doctrine of estoppel by conduct. 22. Adverting to the specific facts, it was submitted that pursuant to the office order dated 27.06.2024, a list of provisionally selected candidates comprising 200% of the advertised posts was prepared. Thereafter, as per the circular issued by the Department of Personnel (DOP) dated 22.08.2024, the process of document verification for the said provisionally selected candidates was undertaken by the Treasury and Accounts Department. Consequent thereto, a final list of eligible and selected candidates was prepared, culminating in the declaration of the final result on 17.12.2024. As per the said result, a total of 4759 candidates — comprising 4257 candidates for the Non-TSP area and 222 candidates for the TSP area were recommended for appointment to the post of Junior Accountant. Similarly, 178 candidates — comprising 154 candidates for the Non-TSP area and 25 candidates for the TSP area were recommended for appointment to the post of Tehsil Revenue Accountant. Subsequently, vide office order dated 09.01.2025 an additional 207 candidates were recommended for the post of Junior Accountant and 11 candidates for the post of Tehsil Revenue Accountant. 23. Insofar as the ME category is concerned, it was submitted that out of 647 seats advertised under the said category, recommendations for 634 selected candidates were already made, and only 13 seats remained vacant in the Non-TSP area. It was clarified that all candidates qualifying under the ME category in the CET Examination were duly considered and selected strictly within the ME category itself in the main examination conducted by the respondent-Board. It was specifically emphasized that no candidates were accommodated or considered belatedly under vertical reservation principles at a later stage. 24. It was clarified that all candidates qualifying under the ME category in the CET Examination were duly considered and selected strictly within the ME category itself in the main examination conducted by the respondent-Board. It was specifically emphasized that no candidates were accommodated or considered belatedly under vertical reservation principles at a later stage. 24. It was further contended that the result declared on 17.12.2024 was strictly in consonance with the Department of Personnel circular dated 24.06.2008, which sets out the general principles regarding reservation in public employment. Particular reliance was placed on point No. 20 of the said circular, which delineates the methodology for preparation of the merit list in direct recruitment. It was thus urged that the selection process and the declaration of result have been carried out in accordance with the governing statutory rules, executive instructions, and in a transparent, fair, and lawful manner, leaving no ground for interference by this Court. b) Submissions made by counsel representing the private-respondents: 25. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents has vehemently opposed the maintainability of the present writ petitions, asserting that the same are wholly misconceived, bereft of merit, and liable to be dismissed in limine. 26. It was contended that none of the petitioners herein have secured marks above the cutoff prescribed under their respective vertical reservation categories, and therefore, they have failed to qualify on merits. Consequently, they are ineligible to claim any right of appointment under the notified recruitment process. It was further submitted that the selection process involved a structured and multi-staged approach, each phase governed by a distinct cutoff criterion. The learned counsel delineated the following three stages of cutoffs applied during the selection procedure: 26.1 CET Stage Cutoff: The first cutoff arose at the stage of the Common Eligibility Test (CET), which served as a screening examination, whereby candidates who secured marks above the notified cutoff were permitted to fill application forms for the main competitive examination. 26.2 Document Verification Stage Cutoff: The second cutoff was applied at the stage when candidates were shortlisted for document verification, based on the ratio of two times the number of advertised vacancies in each category, in accordance with the applicable norms. 26.3 Final Selection Cutoff: The third and final cutoff was implemented during the preparation of the final merit list, post the conclusion of the competitive examination process. 27. 26.3 Final Selection Cutoff: The third and final cutoff was implemented during the preparation of the final merit list, post the conclusion of the competitive examination process. 27. The learned counsel submitted that the entire selection process was governed by three statutory instruments, each applicable at different stages of the recruitment procedure: 27.1 The Rajasthan Common Eligibility Test Rules, 2022, ("CET Rules") 27.2 The Rajasthan Subordinate Accounts Service Rules, 1963 27.3 The Rajasthan Reservation Act, 2008, formally titled The Rajasthan Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, Special Backward Classes and Economically Backward Classes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions in the State and of Appointments and Posts in Services under the State)Act, 2008. 28. It was further contended that as per the proviso to Rule 6 of the CET Rules, it is mandatory that 15 times the number of advertised posts be shortlisted for the main competitive examination. However, where such number of candidates is not available strictly on merit, relaxation is permissible under the said proviso, category-wise, to achieve the object of the Rule and to ensure broad-based participation up to the prescribed limit. It is an admitted position by both parties that candidates possessing marks lower than the minimum cutoff prescribed for the ME category were permitted to fill forms for the main examination in order to fulfill the mandatory 15 times ratio. Such relaxation, was made uniformly across the category to avoid any deficiency in the pool of eligible candidates. 29. Learned counsel strenuously argued that the nature and object of the CET and the subsequent main competitive examinations for Junior Accountant (JRA) and Tehsil Revenue Accountant (TRA) are fundamentally distinct. While the CET is a screening or eligibility test designed to reduce the administrative burden and filter candidates on the basis of minimum qualifications, the main examination is a substantive selection test governed by separate service rules, namely the Rules of 1963, which have an entirely different object and framework. Therefore, any suggestion of double reservation or overlapping applicability of the reservation policy between the CET and main examination is wholly misconceived and erroneous. 30. It was further urged that Rule 6 read with Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Accounts Service Rules, 1963, mandates that 12.5% of the advertised posts be earmarked for candidates belonging to the ME category. Therefore, any suggestion of double reservation or overlapping applicability of the reservation policy between the CET and main examination is wholly misconceived and erroneous. 30. It was further urged that Rule 6 read with Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Accounts Service Rules, 1963, mandates that 12.5% of the advertised posts be earmarked for candidates belonging to the ME category. In furtherance of this objective, and notwithstanding the lower marks obtained by some of the candidates in the CET, Rule 6 of the CET Rules was invoked to permit their participation in the main examination, thereby satisfying the reservation mandate under the Rules of 1963. 31. The learned counsel also referred to the DoP Circular dated 24.06.2008, particularly Para 20 thereof, which outlines the procedure for preparation of merit lists in direct recruitment, incorporating both vertical and horizontal reservations. It was submitted that the selection process adhered strictly to these guidelines, and the interplay of both reservation types was managed in accordance with settled legal principles. In support of this submission, reliance was placed upon a catena of authoritative judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including: Vikas Shankla v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal: 2016 AIR (SC) 5265, Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.: (2010) 3 SCC 119, Saurav Yadav v. State of U.P.: (2021) 4 SCC 542 Ram Naresh v. State of M.P.: AIR 2024 SC 4252 , and Rajesh Kumar Daria v. RPSC: AIR 2007 SC 3127 amongst others. 32. The learned counsel further submitted that the CET and the main competitive examination operate on different statutory planes and cannot be equated or intermingled. While the CET serves to assess minimum eligibility without applying the reservation matrix, the main examination involves merit-based selection with full application of reservation policies, both vertical and horizontal, consistent with Article 309 of the Constitution of India and prevailing recruitment norms. 33. On the issue of “migration”, it was submitted that the present case does not involve migration in the legal sense, which occurs when candidates from reserved categories secure selection in the unreserved/general category on merit. It was clarified that the petitioners have incorrectly construed the concept of reservation, relaxation, exemption, and preference, thereby giving rise to baseless allegations of irregularity. 34. It was clarified that the petitioners have incorrectly construed the concept of reservation, relaxation, exemption, and preference, thereby giving rise to baseless allegations of irregularity. 34. In this regard reliance was placed on the landmark judgment of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court exhaustively delineated the legal contours of reservation in public employment. It was argued that reservation is a beneficial provision and horizontal reservation cannot operate in isolation, divorced from vertical reservation. In this context, attention was drawn to the structure of the application form, which categorically demarcates “General Category” (vertical reservation) and “Special Category” (horizontal reservation), thereby evidencing the composite structure of the reservation scheme. 35. In light of the above, it was submitted that the entire selection process was undertaken in strict compliance with the applicable rules, executive instructions, and judicial precedents. The petitioners, having failed to qualify on merit within their respective categories and having participated in the process without protest, cannot now be permitted to challenge the process. Accordingly, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed with exemplary costs. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS: 36. Having heard the rival arguments advanced by the learned counsel for all the parties, upon a perusal of the material available on record, scanning the judgments cited at the Bar and juxtaposing the contentions noted herein above, this Court at the outset is of the view that the following issues arise for consideration before this Court: 36.1 Whether the action of the respondents in permitting candidates belonging to the Ministerial Employee (ME) category who had initially availed the benefit of a substantially relaxed cutoff under the ME category at the Common Eligibility Test (CET) stage to migrate and claim selection under other reserved categories (such as SC, ST, OBC, or MBC) at the Main Examination and subsequent stages, is legal, valid, and sustainable in law. 36.2 Whether candidates who availed the benefit of relaxed eligibility standards under the ME category at the preliminary stage, but failed to meet the requisite cutoffs prescribed for the ME category at the Main Examination stage, could be permitted to participate in the document verification process or be included in the final selection list. 36.2 Whether candidates who availed the benefit of relaxed eligibility standards under the ME category at the preliminary stage, but failed to meet the requisite cutoffs prescribed for the ME category at the Main Examination stage, could be permitted to participate in the document verification process or be included in the final selection list. 36.3 Whether the inclusion of such candidates in the final merit list dated 17.12.2024 results in an illegal conferment of dual benefits (commonly referred to as "double reservation"), and whether such inclusion vitiates the selection process as being arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 36.4 Whether the final merit list dated 17.12.2024 is liable to be quashed and set aside, and if so, what consequential directions, if any, are required to be issued to ensure a lawful and equitable selection process. 37. The matter before this Court pertains to the process of recruitment for the post of Junior Accountant in the State of Rajasthan, governed by the Rules of 1963 and CET Rules, 2022. It is not in dispute that an advertisement was issued on 20.06.2023 for the recruitment to the post of Junior Accountant pursuant to the CET Rules, 2022. The said advertisement explicitly invoked the applicability of the provisions of the CET Rules, 2022 read with the Rules of 1963. 38. As a conjoint observation and deduction vis-à-vis the issues noted hereinabove it is opined that as per Rule 6 (iii) of the Rules of 1963, it is unequivocally provided that “12.5% of the total number of posts of Junior Accountant shall be filled in by way of direct recruitment from amongst the Ministerial Staff holding the posts in various departments of the Government of Rajasthan, who are substantively appointed in the cadre and who are otherwise eligible under the Rules.” This provision is a mandatory reservation in favor of the ministerial cadre and is to be interpreted strictly in accordance with the Rules. The relevant Rule is reproduced herein below: "6. The relevant Rule is reproduced herein below: "6. Method of Recruitment;- 1.--- (i) --- (ii) --- (iii) Provided also further that 12.5 % of the post of Junior Accountants to be filled in by direct recruitment shall be reserved for being filled in from amongst the ministerial staff of all the departments of the Government holding a post in Cadre substantively, subject to their being found otherwise eligible for such recruitment under the Rules. This reservation shall be carried forward only to the next succeeding year." 39. During the course of proceedings, the respondents - State Government and the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, in their respective replies, have admitted on record that the process of competitive examination and subsequent main examination was carried out in accordance with the applicable reservation mechanism. It has further been brought to the notice of this Court that the State and the Board have adhered to the directives as contained in the Circular dated 24.06.2008, issued by the DoP, which lays down the guidelines for the implementation of reservation in selection and recruitment processes. The said Circular prescribes the method of application of horizontal and vertical reservations and is binding upon all recruiting authorities of the State. The compliance with the reservation mechanism as per the Circular dated 24.06.2008, in conjunction with the statutory prescription under Rule 6(iii) of the Rules of 1963, reflects that the selection process in hand is carried out in a manner consistent with the prevailing legal and administrative framework. The DoP Circular dated 24.06.2008 provides the procedural mechanism for preparing the merit list and effecting reservation in direct recruitment. Clause 20.3 of the Circular explicitly mandates that horizontal reservations are to be adjusted against vertical categories post the selection process. In the instant matter, the recruiting agency has adhered to the framework laid down by the Circular and relevant rules. For the sake of convenience the relevant provision for preparation of the merit list in direct recruitment is reiterated herein below: "20. Preparation of merit list in direct recruitment 20.1 We now come to the question of how to select candidates so that all the categories get the number of posts reserved for them. For the sake of convenience the relevant provision for preparation of the merit list in direct recruitment is reiterated herein below: "20. Preparation of merit list in direct recruitment 20.1 We now come to the question of how to select candidates so that all the categories get the number of posts reserved for them. Separate lists of candidates in the order of their merit should be made for each category for which there is reservation – SC, ST, OBC, OC women, SC women, ST women, OBC Women, PD, ES, NG and SP - as well a common list. In the first round, first of all, the OC category candidates as are the number of vacancies in the OC category should be selected. Any member of the SC/ST/OBC category, appearing in this list should be counted towards OC category unless he has taken some concession admissible to of SC, ST these categories other than concession in fees. Thereafter, list of SC. ST and OBC candidates should be prepared from the remaining candidates in the lists and OBC categories respectively. 20.2 In the second round, it should be ensured that women get adequate vacancies. If the number of SC women is less than the number of vacancies reserved for them, the shortfall should be made up by selecting SC women from amongst the remaining SC women in the SC women list, in order of merit, and deleting an equal number of males from the selected list of SC category candidates in reverse order of their merit. Similar exercise should be done for the ST, OBC and then the open competition lists. 20.3 Reservation for the persons with disabilities, ex-servicemen, non-gazetted employees and sports persons is also horizontal and should be then ensured. Thus, from amongst these four lists, the shortfall, if any, of persons with disabilities, ex-servicemen, non-gazetted employees and sports persons should be calculated. In the third round, this shortfall should be made up by selecting sufficient number of persons from the lists of these categories, in order of merit, so as to fulfill the shortfall. For each person so selected, one person (the least meritorious) of same category as the person selected should be removed from the list of that category made in the second round. For each person so selected, one person (the least meritorious) of same category as the person selected should be removed from the list of that category made in the second round. If there is no shortfall in any of these categories viz persons with disabilities ex-servicemen, non-gazetted employees and sports persons, there is no need to make any extra selection." 40. This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the provision for 12.5% reservation in favor of ministerial staff under Rule 6(iii) of the Rules of 1963 is not a mere enabling provision but a statutory mandate, and any deviation from its implementation would vitiate the recruitment process to that extent. In view of the above, this Court holds that the reservation granted to the ministerial staff under Rule 6(iii) of the 1963 Rules is valid, enforceable, and must be implemented in strict compliance during the recruitment process undertaken in furtherance to the advertisement dated 20.06.2023. 41. The CET Rules, 2022 govern the conduct of the Common Eligibility Test, which serves as a preliminary qualifying examination for recruitment to various posts under Schedule I and II. Rule 6 of the CET Rules, 2022 confers discretion upon the recruiting agency to relax the qualifying marks for reserved category candidates in the event that a sufficient number of candidates (15 times the number of vacancies) do not qualify under general standards. This relaxation is intended to ensure adequate representation in the main examination. 42. The recruitment agency, while implementing the reservation framework, devised application forms distinguishing candidates under two broad headings: (i) General Category candidates covered under vertical reservation (SC/ST/OBC) (ii) Special Category candidates under horizontal reservation (ME category). This bifurcation, being in line with the constitutional provisions under Articles 16(1) and 16(4), and supported by the Department of Personnel (DoP) Circular dated 24.06.2008, appropriately accounted for both vertical and horizontal reservations. 43. The grievance of the petitioners that ME category candidates were permitted to appear in the main examination with relaxed standards and later migrated to other reserved categories such as SC/ST/OBC, thereby availing the benefit of double reservation, is carefully examined. It is noted that neither the advertisement nor the governing rules explicitly prohibit ME category candidates from being considered under SC/ST/OBC category, if they otherwise qualify on merit. It is noted that neither the advertisement nor the governing rules explicitly prohibit ME category candidates from being considered under SC/ST/OBC category, if they otherwise qualify on merit. In this context, such consideration does not amount to migration or double reservation but rather reflects the integration of horizontal reservation within vertical categories, as recognized by constitutional jurisprudence. 44. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saurav Yadav & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [ (2021) 4 SCC 542 ] wherein the principles governing the interplay of horizontal and vertical reservations were clarified. Paras 36, 56, and 58 of the said judgment categorically uphold the adjustment of horizontally reserved candidates (such as women or ME category) against vertical categories upon their qualifying on merit, without such adjustment being treated as double reservation. The emphasized paragraphs are reproduced herein below: " 36. Finally, we must say that the steps indicated by the High Court of Gujarat in para 56 of its judgment in Tamannaben Ashokbhai Desai contemplate the correct and appropriate procedure for considering and giving effect to both vertical and horizontal reservations. The illustration given by us deals with only one possible dimension. There could be multiple such possibilities. Even going by the present illustration, the first female candidate allocated in the vertical column for Scheduled Tribes may have secured higher position than the candidate at Serial No.64. In that event said candidate must be shifted from the category of Scheduled Tribes to Open / General category causing a resultant vacancy in the vertical column of Scheduled Tribes. Such vacancy must then ensure to the benefit of the candidate in the Waiting List for Scheduled Tribes – Female. The steps indicated by Gujarat High Court will take care of every such possibility. It is true that the exercise of laying down a procedure must necessarily be left to the concerned authorities but we may observe that one set out in said judgment will certainly satisfy all claims and will not lead to any incongruity as highlighted by us in the preceding paragraphs. 56. The judgments in Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. State of UP, Swati Gupta Vs. State of UP and Jitendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of UP, were decisions which arose from recruitment cases concerning the state of UP. 56. The judgments in Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. State of UP, Swati Gupta Vs. State of UP and Jitendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of UP, were decisions which arose from recruitment cases concerning the state of UP. In fact in Jitendra Kumar Singh, the court even considered the question of validity of the horizontal reservations in favour of women, as well as the Government Order of 26.2.1999. The latest in that series is a decision of this court in Anupal Singh V. State of U.P, where the court had to consider, as one of the contentions raised, the question similar to the one which arises for consideration in this case, i.e. whether social category horizontal candidates can fill horizontal category vacancies. The court recorded the facts and noticed the contentions of the parties, in the following manner (para 62): “62. The contention of the private respondents is that as per the statutory requirement, the horizontal reserved vacancies were unfilled and those unfilled vacancies of horizontal category were filled by vertical reservation candidates/other category candidates, which is in violation of the statutory provisions vitiating the selection process. On behalf of the U.P.Public Service Commission, Mr Shrish Kumar Misra, learned counsel has furnished the details as to the number of vacancies reserved for horizontal category and the number of candidates found suitable and placed in the respective categories. The said details are as under: Category No. of Vacancies No. of selected candidates Women 1325 156 Dependents of Freedom Fighters 132 45 Ex-Servicemen 330 NIL Partially Blind 84 84 Partially deaf 84 57 One-arm 42 42 One-leg 42 42 On behalf of the U.P. Public Service Commission, it was submitted that one of the policies of the State Government regarding horizontal reservation is that, if the suitable candidates for filling the vacancies reserved for such posts of horizontal reservation are not available and the same are not carried forward; they are filled up by other suitable candidates from amongst the candidates belonging to vertically reserved categories according to their merit. It was submitted that unfilled horizontal reservation vacancies were thus filled up by suitable candidates of respective vertical categories according to their merit which is as per the policy of the Government. It was submitted that unfilled horizontal reservation vacancies were thus filled up by suitable candidates of respective vertical categories according to their merit which is as per the policy of the Government. The High Court was not right in finding fault with the filling up of vacancies reserved for horizontal reservation with other candidates of respective vertical reservation.” Thereafter the court recorded its conclusions, in the following terms: “84.6. The filling up of the unfilled horizontal reservation by the candidates from the respective vertical reservation is in accordance with the policy of the Government and the same cannot be faulted with.” 58. I would conclude by saying that reservations, both vertical and horizontal, are method of ensuring representation in public services. These are not to be seen as rigid “slots”, where a candidate’s merit, which otherwise entitles her to be shown in the open general category, is foreclosed, as the consequence would be, if the state’s argument is accepted. Doing so, would result in a communal reservation, where each social category is confined within the extent of their reservation, thus negating merit. The open category is open to all, and the only condition for a candidate to be shown in it is merit, regardless of whether reservation benefit of either type is available to her or him." 45. Additionally, reliance is placed upon the ratio encapsulated in Vikas Shankla (Supra) and paras 60 and 62 thereof, which further reinforce the legality of such procedural integration, particularly when it facilitates the objectives of inclusive representation and non-discrimination. " 60. Having regard to the respective submissions noted above, first aspect that needs consideration is as to whether relaxation in TET pass marks would amount to concession in the recruitment process. The High Court has held to be so on the premise that para 9(a) dealing with such relaxation in TET marks forms part of the document which relates to the recruitment procedure. It is difficult to accept this rationale or analogy. Passing of TET examination is a condition of eligibility for appointment as a teacher. It is a necessary qualification without which a candidate is not eligible to be considered for appointment. This was clearly mentioned in guidelines/notification dated February 11, 2011. These guidelines pertain to conducting of TET. Basic features whereof have already been pointed out above. Passing of TET examination is a condition of eligibility for appointment as a teacher. It is a necessary qualification without which a candidate is not eligible to be considered for appointment. This was clearly mentioned in guidelines/notification dated February 11, 2011. These guidelines pertain to conducting of TET. Basic features whereof have already been pointed out above. Even para 9 which provides for concessions that can be given to certain reserved categories deals with 'qualifying marks' that is to be obtained in TET examination. Thus, a person who passes TET examination becomes eligible to participate in the selection process as and when such selection process for filling up of the posts of primary teachers is to be undertaken by the State. On the other hand, when it comes to recruitment of teachers, the method for appointment of teachers is altogether different. Here, merit list of successful candidates is to be prepared on the basis of marks obtained under different heads. One of the heads is marks in TET. So far as this head is concerned, 20% of the marks obtained in TET are to be assigned to each candidate. Therefore, those reserved category candidates who secured lesser marks in TET would naturally get less marks under this head. We like to demonstrate it with an example. Suppose a reserved category candidate obtains 53 marks in TET, he is treated as having qualified TET. However, when he is considered for selection to the post of primary teacher, in respect of allocation of marks he will get 20% marks for TET. As against him, a general candidate who secures 70 marks in TET shall be awarded 14 marks in recruitment process. Thus, on the basis of TET marks reserved category candidate has not got any advantage while considering his candidature for the post. On the contrary, “level playing field” is maintained whereby a person securing higher marks in TET, whether belonging to general category or reserved category, is allocated higher marks in respect of 20% of TET marks. Thus, in recruitment process no weightage or concession is given and allocation of 20% of TET marks is applied across the board. Therefore, the High Court is not correct in observing that concession was given in the recruitment process on the basis of relaxation in TET. 62. In Jitendra Kumar Singh & Anr. Thus, in recruitment process no weightage or concession is given and allocation of 20% of TET marks is applied across the board. Therefore, the High Court is not correct in observing that concession was given in the recruitment process on the basis of relaxation in TET. 62. In Jitendra Kumar Singh & Anr. V. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., this Court has very categorically held that relaxations given in educational qualifications etc. making a person eligible to participate in selection process would not be treated as availing benefits in the recruitment/employment and the benefits envisaged have to be those which have direct relation to recruitment/employment and are relatable to the jovial relationship of employer and employee. It is also clarified that such benefits must occur from and should be post 'level playing field'. We would like to reproduce the following discussion from the said judgment touching upon the aforesaid aspects: “48. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the considered opinion that the submissions of the appellants that relaxation in fee or age would deprive the candidates belonging to the reserved category of an opportunity to compete against the general category candidates is without any foundation. It is to be noticed that the reserved category candidates have not been given any advantage in the selection process. All the candidates had to appear in the same written test and face the same interview. It is therefore quite apparent that the concession in fee and age relaxation only enabled certain candidates belonging to the reserved category to fall within the zone of consideration. The concession in age did not in any manner tilt the balance in favour of the reserved category candidates, in the preparation of final merit/select list. 49. It is permissible for the State in view of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 38 of the Constitution of India to make suitable provisions in law to eradicate the disadvantages of candidates belonging to socially and educationally backward classes. Reservations are a mode to achieve the equality of opportunity guaranteed under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. Concessions and relaxations in fee or age provided to the reserved category candidates to enable them to compete and seek benefit of reservation, is merely an aid to reservation. The concessions and relaxations place the candidates on a par with general category candidates. Concessions and relaxations in fee or age provided to the reserved category candidates to enable them to compete and seek benefit of reservation, is merely an aid to reservation. The concessions and relaxations place the candidates on a par with general category candidates. It is only thereafter the merit of the candidates is to be determined without any further concessions in favour of the reserved category candidates. xx xx xx 75. In our opinion, the relaxation in age does not in any manner upset the “level playing field”. It is not possible to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that relaxation in age or the concession in fee would in any manner be infringement of Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. These concessions are provisions pertaining to the eligibility of a candidate to appear in the competitive examination. At the time when the concessions are availed, the open competition has not commenced. It commences when all the candidates who fulfill the eligibility conditions, namely, qualifications, age, preliminary written test and physical test are permitted to sit in the main written examination. With age relaxation and the fee concession, the reserved candidates are merely brought within the zone of consideration, so that they can participate in the open competition on merit. Once the candidate participates in the written examination, it is immaterial as to which category, the candidate belongs. All the candidates to be declared eligible had participated in the preliminary test as also in the physical test. It is only thereafter that successful candidates have been permitted to participate in the open competition.” It is stated at the cost of repetition that provision of giving 20% marks of TET score was applied to all candidates irrespective of the category to which he/she belongs and, therefore, no concession or relaxation or advantage or benefit was given in this behalf which could disturb the level playing field and tilt advantage in respect of reserved category candidate. On the contrary, the reserved category candidates who had secured less marks in TET examination are given lesser marks in the recruitment process on the application of the formula of allocating 20% marks of TET score. Question No. 3 is answered accordingly. 63. On the contrary, the reserved category candidates who had secured less marks in TET examination are given lesser marks in the recruitment process on the application of the formula of allocating 20% marks of TET score. Question No. 3 is answered accordingly. 63. These appeals are accordingly allowed in the manner indicated in this judgment, effect whereof would be as under: (a) Those reserved category candidates who secured pass marks on the application of relaxed standards as contained in the extant policy of the Government in its communication dated March 23, 2011 to be treated as having qualified TET examination and, thus, eligible to participate in the selection undertaken by the State Government. (b) Migration from reserved category to general category shall be admissible to those reserved category candidates who secured more marks obtained by the last unreserved category candidates who are selected, subject to the condition that such reserved category candidates did not avail any other special concession. It is clarified that concession of passing marks in TET would not be treated as concession falling in the aforesaid category.” (emphasis supplied) 46. Significantly, the petitioners herein have neither challenged the format of the application form nor the validity of the DoP Circular dated 24.06.2008. Moreover, none of the petitioners in the given case has secured higher marks than the cut-off in their vertical reservation and have filed the present petitions after being unsuccessful in their respective categories, to extract an extra leverage. Therefore, their challenge is not maintainable on procedural or constitutional grounds. Moreover, it is unambiguous that the marks scored by a candidate in the competitive exam for Junior Accountant or Tehsil Revenue Accountant are used to determine the merit which is drawn under a complex process of selection whereas the CET exam can be applied multiple times and there is no bar on the number of attempts, thus leaving no iota of doubt that it is not a part of the selection process. 47. Nevertheless, in the advertisement dated 20.06.2023, the respondent-Board has considered ME category as a separate class and has kept them in the category of horizontal reservation.The relevant extract from the same is reproduced hereinbelow: CONCLUSION: 48. 47. Nevertheless, in the advertisement dated 20.06.2023, the respondent-Board has considered ME category as a separate class and has kept them in the category of horizontal reservation.The relevant extract from the same is reproduced hereinbelow: CONCLUSION: 48. In summation of the aforementioned, it can be noted that as per the governing statute (CET Rules) the recruiting agency was bound to call fifteen times candidates of the advertised seats, which specifically provides that the examination was merely to make the candidates appeared therein ‘eligible’ for applying to the posts advertised in the competitive examinations. Therefore, since fifteen times candidates were not available for the posts of Junior Accountant and Tehsil Revenue Accountant, the candidates were ‘made eligible’ to fill the application forms for the competitive examination. Nonetheless, the petitioners are also the candidates having lesser marks than the cut-off and are still ‘made eligible’ to appear in the mains examination, in adherence of the governing statute; that the Rule 6 read with Rule 7 of the Rules of 1963 further categorically states that 12.5% of the advertised posts shall be filled by the ME category candidates; that the respondents have also made the fact qua the reservation policy unambiguous in the advertisement itself. 49. In view of the above analysis and the well-settled legal principles governing horizontal and vertical reservations, this Court finds no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioners. The recruitment agency has acted within the bounds of statutory provisions, administrative guidelines, and constitutional mandate. The relaxation of standards for ME category candidates under Rule6 of the CET Rules, 2022, the integration of horizontal reservations with vertical categories, and the calling of eligible candidates for document verification pursuant to the order dated27.06.2024, do not suffer from any legal infirmity. 50. Accordingly, the present batch of petitions being bereft of any merits stand dismissed. The result dated 17.12.2024 is not liable to be quashed or interfered with. No orders are passed as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.