ORDER : (Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.) 1. Since an identical issue and common question of facts are involved in both the writ petitions, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners have filed this writ petition with a prayer that respondent No.2 be kindly directed to prepare a fresh list for skill test according to the reservation roster and as per law. The petitioners be also directed to provide opportunity for skill test in the aforesaid recruitment examination. 3. The brief facts, as reflected from the records are that; A) The respondent No. 2 published an advertisement for appointment of Stenographer, Steno Typist, and Assistant Grade III on 28.06.2023 and called applications in this respect from the candidates. As per the advertisement the last date for submission of application form was 13.07.2023. The petitioners participated in the aforesaid proceeding and preliminary Exam was held on 22.10.2023. The respondent No. 2 prepared a separate list of candidates for skill test of Un-reserved, OBC, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. It is also the case of the petitioners that list for Unreserved candidates highest marks secured by the candidates is 45 and lowest is 29 whereas in OBC category highest marks is 46 and lowest is 39. B) The petitioners have scored more than 29 marks which is higher than the lowest marks of the Unreserved Category still they were not called for skill test by applying wrong reservation roster, consequently the lower scored candidates were called for skill test. It has been further contended that in other district court recruitment drive the appointing authority has prepared the list of candidates as per reservation roster and persons of OBC category who have secured higher marks than unreserved candidates were called for skill test, as such a discriminative and illegal procedure has been adopted by respondent No. 2. It is further submitted that the petitioners raised objection before the authority but respondent No.02 has not redressed the grievance of petitioners in this regard. On the above factual foundations the petitioners have prayed for issuance of direction for preparation of list of candidates as per reservation rules. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the petitioners are eligible to be called for skill test but due to adoption of wrong reservation roster by the respondent No.2 petitioners are being deprived from skill test. On the above factual foundations the petitioners have prayed for issuance of direction for preparation of list of candidates as per reservation rules. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the petitioners are eligible to be called for skill test but due to adoption of wrong reservation roster by the respondent No.2 petitioners are being deprived from skill test. He would further submit that the respondent authority has not applied its mind while preparing the list of candidates for skill test which is nothing but discrimination and arbitrariness. He would further submit that as per notice dated 06.12.2023 (Annexure P/4) and covering memo dated 10.09.2024, same exam has been conducted at Mungeli and Surguja District wherein the reservation rule has been followed in its letter and spirit. He would further submit that the Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Janjatiyon avam Anya Pichhade Vargon ka Arakshan Adhiniyam, 1994 (in short ‘the Rules of 1994’) as per amendment made on 19.05.1995 and as per the notification issued by the State of Chhattisgarh on 11.02.2008 provides that any reserved candidates selected in unreserved category on their own merits does not count as a reserved candidate. To substantiate his submission he would refer to the judgment of constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India & Ors. { 1 992 Supp. (3) SCC 217} wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in India vertical reservation system was followed in all recruitment process. In this system, if any candidate obtains higher marks then they vertically migrate to the unreserved category and should be appointed against unreserved post. He would further rely upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & another Vs. Sandeep Choudhary & others { 2022 Livelaw (SC) 419} , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that rule of reservation is applied in all over vacancies. He has also referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saurav Yadaw & ors. Vs. State of UP & ors. { (2021) 4 SCC 542 } wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the system of filling up the posts of reserved candidates. Again he has referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & ors. Vs. Vs. State of UP & ors. { (2021) 4 SCC 542 } wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the system of filling up the posts of reserved candidates. Again he has referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & ors. Vs. M. Selvakumar & another, { (2017) 3 SCC 504 } wherein it has been held that the vertical and horizontal reservation system should be followed in public employment all over India. He has also referred to the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ritesh R. Sah Vs. Dr. Y.L. Yamul & ors. { (1996) 3 SCC 253 }’, R.K. Sabharwal Vs. State of Punjab (1995) 2 SCC 745}, Union of India Vs. Virpal Singh Chouhan (1995) 6 SCC 684} wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if any candidate selected, promoted on the rule of merit shall not be counted as reserved category candidates. Thus, he would submit that if any candidate obtains higher marks against the unreserved category candidates then they will be selected against unreserved category candidates and selection committee should not be counted as a reserved category candidate. This is called a vertical reservation system, which was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India & Others (supra). He would further submit that it is clear that every selection committee has followed a vertical reservation system and reservation rules have to be followed at every stage of selection process. In Deependra Yadav & ors. Vs. State of MP & ors. {(2024) SCC Online (SC) 724 decided on 01.05.2024} the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly stated that reservation roster/rules will be followed in all steps of selection process and prays for allowing these petitions. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 in his reply would submit that nature of the relief sought is entirely vague and is not sustainable, therefore, in the light of the aforementioned backdrop, the petitions are liable to be dismissed at the threshold. He would further submit that petitioners have not sought any specific relief seeking quashment or setting aside of the list of candidates eligible for skill test published by the answering respondent, as such in absence of any specific relief the writ petitions in its present form are not maintainable. He would further submit that petitioners have not sought any specific relief seeking quashment or setting aside of the list of candidates eligible for skill test published by the answering respondent, as such in absence of any specific relief the writ petitions in its present form are not maintainable. He would further submit that according to Clause No. 6 of the terms of the advertisement dated 28.06.2023, the preliminary examination was conducted only for the purpose of short listing in case more number of applications were received, and the marks secured in the preliminary examination were not to be added to the marks of the skill test conducted for the final selection. Thus, it is well settled position of law that the rules of reservation related to migration from a reserved category to an unreserved/exempt category at the initial/screening level are not applicable. The petitioners are not entitled for relief as sought as the rule of reservation regarding migration from reserved category to unreserved category is not applicable at the stage of declaring result of the preliminary examination result/screening level. (See: Pushpendra Kumar Patel and others us High Court of Madhya Pradesh 2023 SCC OnLine MP 12). Therefore, in accordance with law, based on the marks obtained in the preliminary examination a category-wise list of candidates eligible for the skill test has been prepared by the answering respondent. He would submit that it is incorrect to say that answering respondent has adopted reservation roster in wrong pattern while preparing the list of candidates eligible for skill test based on the marks obtained in preliminary examination. He would further submit that the candidates who have scored lower marks have been called for skill test is denied as it is in accordance with terms and conditions of advertisement at Clause 6 providing selection process for appointment has conducted preliminary examination and has prepared list of candidates eligible for skill test and would pray for dismissal of the writ petitions. To substantiate his submission he would refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ramnaresh @ Rinku Kushwah and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others { SLP(C) No. 2111 of 2024 with SLP(C) No. 2311-2312 of 2024 & SLP(C) No. 2285 of 2024 Neutral Citation No. 2024 INSC 611 }. 6. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others { SLP(C) No. 2111 of 2024 with SLP(C) No. 2311-2312 of 2024 & SLP(C) No. 2285 of 2024 Neutral Citation No. 2024 INSC 611 }. 6. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. From the submissions made by the parties the point emerged for determination by this Court is whether the respondents were justified in preparing the list of eligible candidates for skill test without following the Rules of 1994? 8. To appreciate this point it is expedient for this Court to go through the stage of selection process for appointment of Assistant Grade III initiated by the District Judge Bilaspur. As per clause 6, the selection process has been prescribed in three stages. First stage is preliminary examination which consists of 50 Objective type questions and the candidates have to be called in ratio of 1:10 and to participate in the skill test. This clause specifically provides that the marks obtained in this examination will not be added for preparation of merit list. Thereafter, in the second stage skill test has to be conducted for Assistant Grade III and the final select list as well as waiting list have to be prepared as per the marks obtained in the skill test. As such, the first stage examination is nothing but a step for shortlisting of the candidates which is the process of evaluating and selecting a candidate with aim to identify the most qualified candidates for further consideration in selection process. The first stage examination being shortlisting of the candidates therefore, it is not necessary for the answering respondent to adopt vertical reservation as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Saurav Yadav (supra) does not deal with the situation in the present case. Paragraph 58 and 59 of the judgment deal with the Article 16(1) or 15(3) or 16(4). Article 16(1) provides equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters related to employment or appointment to any office under the Act. Article 15(3) provides that nothing in this Article prevents the State from making any special provisions for women and children. Paragraph 58 and 59 of the judgment deal with the Article 16(1) or 15(3) or 16(4). Article 16(1) provides equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters related to employment or appointment to any office under the Act. Article 15(3) provides that nothing in this Article prevents the State from making any special provisions for women and children. Similarly, Article 16(4) which provides that nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any provisions for reservation for appointment or post in favour of any backward class of the citizen which in the opinion of the State is not adequately represented in the service under the State. From bare perusal of these articles, it is quite vivid that the reservation has to be followed in case of employment but shortlisting cannot be said to give an indefatigable right to any candidate for employment. Thus, it is a premature submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that though they have secured higher marks then the unreserved category they should be allowed to switch over as unreserved category. The issue of right of the shortlisting candidate has come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ali Hossain Mandal and Others vs. W.B. Board of Primary Education and Others { 2024 INSC 453 } has held in paragraph 26 and 28 as under:- 26. That apart even when vacancies are notified and an adequate number of candidates are shortlisted, these candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed against those vacancies. Multiple factors are to be taken into account by the Board, including suitability as per district, age, language, etc. before appointments are made. For such reasons 3929 vacancies remained unfilled by the time the panel’s validity expired. Before that, 12,571 appointments were made. 28. Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, learned senior counsel, placed heavy reliance on the ratio in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap & Ors. v. South East Central Railway & Ors.{ (2019) 12 SCC 798 } to contend that although the selected candidate may not have any vested right to be appointed against the available vacancies but when the employer decides not to fill up the posts, the discretion is to be exercised judiciously. On this aspect, suffice it would be to say that the Rules provided for shelf life of one year for the panel list. On this aspect, suffice it would be to say that the Rules provided for shelf life of one year for the panel list. Admittedly, extension of the said list (notified on 15.02.2021) was not granted by any authority. As the decision to not act upon the expired select list is based upon the provisions of the Rules, we are disinclined to accept the argument advanced by the learned senior counsel based on the ratio in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap. It may also be noted that the candidates in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra) had approached the Court during the validity of the select list unlike in these matters where the first batch of Writ Petitions came to be filed in May 2022, i.e., roughly three months after the expiry of the said Merit List in February 2022. 9. From the bare perusal of the short listing candidates and the criteria laid down in the advertisement it is quite vivid that against 1 post 10 candidates have to be shortlisted. The respondents have issued an advertisement for 32 unreserved category, accordingly it has shortlisted 372 candidates of unreserved category who have obtained marks between 45 to 29 to maintain the ratio as provided in the advertisement. If the petitioners are allowed to participate in the skill test being secured higher marks then the unreserved category, then it will amount to change of rule after issuance of advertisement as number of candidates will be increased ignoring the ratio of 1:10 fixed in the advertisement which is not permissible in view of the Constitution Bench judgment in case of Tej Prakash Pathak vs. Rajasthan High Court and Others { 2024 INSC 847 } wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- 42. We, therefore, answer the reference in the following terms:- (1) Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies; (2) Eligibility criteria for being placed in the Select List, notified at the commencement of the recruitment CIVIL APPEAL NO.2634 OF 2013 process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness; (3) The decision in K. Manjusree (supra) lays down good law and is not in conflict with the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha (supra). Subash Chander Marwaha (supra) deals with the right to be appointed from the Select List whereas K. Manjusree (supra) deals with the right to be placed in the Select List. The two cases therefore deal with altogether different issues; (4) Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, non-discriminatory/ non- arbitrary and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. (5) Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility. However, where the Rules are non-existent, or silent, administrative instructions may fill in the gaps; (6) Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment. The State or its instrumentality for CIVIL APPEAL NO.2634 OF 2013 bona fide reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies. However, if vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the select list. 10. The record of the case would further demonstrate that the petitioners without objection have participated in the preliminary examination and even in these petitions they have not challenged the criteria of calling the candidates in 1:10 ratio in any manner, therefore, also the petitioners are estopped from challenging the subsequent non- inclusion of the petitioners in the skill test. Thus, the writ petitions are also liable to be dismissed on this count. 11. Considering the law on the subject that even the shortlisted candidates have no indefatigable right for selection, just participating in the recruitment process without any objection disentitle the petitioners who have not even shortlisted to get any relief as prayed for in the writ petition. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are deserved to be dismissed and accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.