JUDGMENT : (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) : Considering commonalty of the issues raised in all these petitions from different benches of the High Court, those have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Rule. It is made returnable forthwith. Learned Advocate General Mr. Birendra Saraf, and the learned advocates for the respective respondents waive service. Considering the urgency and the ramification since challenges are put up to the entire merit list prepared by the Board of Examination of the State of Maharashtra, the matters are heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. At the outset, it would be apt to cull down the common issue to be addressed in all these petitions : Whether candidates from the reserved category who have availed the concession to become eligible to participate in the examination to select the candidates for a post, can migrate to an open/unreserved category on the basis of their scores in the selection examination. 4. All these petitions put up a challenge to the merit list published on 25.02.2024 for recommending the candidate to individual establishments for recruitment of teachers through an online portal viz. Pavitra Portal, evolved in the light of directions of this Court of undertaking the process. 5. In order to appreciate the issue in the proper perspective, it would be apposite to peep into the history. In the light of the provision of Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), the qualification for appointment and terms and conditions of the service of the teachers, are expected to be provided for ensuring quality of education imparted to children. The Central Government established National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) on 23.08.2010 as an apex body to lay down the qualification for appointment of teachers. The NCTE laid down the qualification for a person to be appointed as a teacher to teach Class I to VIII on 23.08.2010. It prescribed clearance of Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) as an essential qualification for appointment of teachers. By issuing notification on 11.02.2011 it also laid down methodology of the TET examination. It was stated that the qualifying marks would be 60% or more at the TET examination. It prescribed clearance of Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) as an essential qualification for appointment of teachers. By issuing notification on 11.02.2011 it also laid down methodology of the TET examination. It was stated that the qualifying marks would be 60% or more at the TET examination. It also enabled the Governments, local bodies and government aided and unaided institutions to relax this passing percentage for reserved category students under the extant reservation policy. The NCTE itself by notification dated 29.07.2011 provided the relaxation up to 5% in the qualifying marks for the reserved category candidates. 6. The State of Maharashtra by Government Resolution dated 13.02.2013 and pursuant to the provision of Section 23 of the RTE Act and the aforementioned NCTE guidelines made TET as a mandatory qualification for teachers in the State. By another Government Resolution dated 06.03.2013 it was directed that the TET qualification should be acquired by 31.03.2015, which was subsequently by GR dated 20.08.2013, deleted. 7. Government Resolution dated 23.08.2013 enabled a candidate to appear for the TET any number of time to improve his score. 8. In accordance with the NCTE guidelines, the Government of Maharashtra come out with resolution dated 07.02.2019 and granted concession of up to 55% in the qualifying marks in respect of reserved category candidates. Pursuant to the directions of this Court in PIL No.8/2015 the Government of Maharashtra passed Government Resolution on 23.06.2017 and made a provision of Pavitra Portal which was visible to all the candidates participating in the recruitment process of teachers. It also mandated Teachers Aptitude and Intelligence Test (TAIT) as the competitive examination further providing that the marks obtained in that test as a parameter for preparation of the merit list. It was also provided therein that the candidate will have five chances to improve their score at the TAIT. 9. The State Government issued GR on 07.02.2019 and sought to undertake and operate the Pavitra Portal expressly declaring that recruitment to the post of Shikshan Sevak would be conducted on the basis of the scores in TAIT. Private Educational Institutes were given option to follow the selection on the basis of merit in the TAIT plus the performance at the interview. Private Educational Institutes were given option to follow the selection on the basis of merit in the TAIT plus the performance at the interview. Though initially it enabled a candidate to give five attempts at the TAIT examination, the relevant clause 3.4 from this GR was modified by GR dated 10.11.2022 making it mandatory for a candidate to appear at a fresh TAIT every time and declaring that the previous score at TAIT would not be considered. 10. In the light of such NCTE guidelines and various Government Resolutions the respondent – Maharashtra State Council of Examination, Pune (MSCE) conducted TAIT examination for selection of teachers in different schools of Zilla Parishad, Municipal Corporation, Nagar Parishad and private managements, in the year 2023. A merit list was displayed on 25.02.2024 and on the next date i.e. 26.02.2024 it was displayed on the portal that the candidates who had taken benefit of reservation in respect of their scores at the TET or CTET will not be considered for unreserved category. All these petitions take exception to this merit list published on 25.02.2024 and some of them seek its correction and in some petitions even the subsequent notification put up on 26.02.2024 on the website is challenged. 11. The thrust of the submissions of all the learned advocates of the petitioners is to the effect that the score at the TET or CTET merely provides eligibility and the ultimate selection was declared to be purely on the basis of the scores of the candidates at TAIT. Their stand is that any concession extended to reserved candidates just to make them eligible cannot deprive them of migrating to unreserved category on the basis of their merit at the selection examination TAIT. Once it is declared that the selection of the candidates was to be purely on the basis of their scores at TAIT, ignoring their merit in TAIT would be contrary to the aim and object of Section 23 of the RTE Act, of maintaining standard of education. If the selection criteria was only to be the scores at TAIT, it would be illogical and illegal if meritorious candidates at TAIT who, in spite of merit are denied such migration merely because of having deservedly received some concession in the eligibility criteria. In order to substantiate their such submission they would rely upon the decisions in the matter of Vikas Sankhala and Ors. In order to substantiate their such submission they would rely upon the decisions in the matter of Vikas Sankhala and Ors. Vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal and Ors.; AIR 2016 SC 5265 , Saurav Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.; 2021 AIR (SC) 233, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Sandeep Choudhary and Ors.; AIR 2022 SC 2975 , Sadhana Singh Dangi and Ors. Vs. Pinki Asati and Ors.; (2022) 2 SCC 401 . 12. They would also rely upon couple of decisions of this Court in the matter of Charushila Tukaram Chaudhari and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.; 2019 (5) AIR Bom R 561 and Sayali Nitin Inamke Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.; 2023 DGLS (Bom.) 3581. 13. The other limb of the submission of the learned advocates for the petitioners is based on the usual stand in such matters of changing the rules of the game after it was played. They submitted that at no point of time the candidates were notified that such of the reserved candidates who would obtain some concession at the TET or CTET would not be permitted to migrate to the unreserved category. However, the impugned communication, by way of notification on the website on 26.02.2024, after publication of the merit list was received by them as a bolt from the blue. Had there been any such notification at the earlier point of time the reserved category candidates could have participated at the TAIT without claiming any reservation. They, therefore, submitted that such subsequent change in the stance by way of notification, after publication of the merit list is an after thought and is an attempt to salvage some ground and justify the wrong. 14. The learned advocates of the petitioners would also cite certain instances, wherein, some candidates having scored less at the TAIT, either from the reserved category or unreserved category, find place in the merit lists in the unreserved category, and some candidates claiming reservation in spite of having scored more at the TET are missing in the TAIT merit list and could have easily be placed in the unreserved category on the basis of their score at the TAIT. 15. 15. The learned advocates for the petitioners would submit that the whole exercise of preparing such a merit list is contrary to the reservation policy and the trite principles of law, and prevents reserved category candidates to be placed in the unreserved category purely on the basis of their merit in the selection examination. 16. Per contra, the learned Advocate General would, at the outset taken a stand that the issue being raised by the petitioners is no longer res integra in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT Delhi and Ors. Vs. Pradeep Kumar and Ors.; AIR Online 2019 SC 2024. He would advert our attention to paragraph Nos.23 to 27. He would submit that since it is a matter of quality of education to be maintained, the performance at the TET or CTET is also equally important. It was prescribed that the 60% score at the TET was the benchmark to maintain this quality. Every candidate was given any number of opportunities to better the score precisely for this reason. The reserved category candidates who were otherwise not eligible could become eligible for appearing at the TAIT by receiving 5% of concession in the marks at the TET or CTET. It is only because of such concession that they were eligible to appear at the TAIT. He would submit that precisely for this reason, Pradeep Kumar (supra) expressly laid down that a reserve category candidate having obtained concession in respect of score at the qualifying examination of CTET, irrespective of their merit in the TAIT, cannot seek to migrate to the unreserved category. He would therefore submit that Pradeep Kumar (supra) lays down the settled position of law and in itself is sufficient to negate petitioners’ claims. 17. The learned Advocate General would also quote before us certain instances qua specific candidates. He would demonstrates that though the score of a reserved category candidate at the TAIT is more than a general category candidate or even a reserved category candidate from the merit list from unreserved category, had scored more than him at the TET/CTET. He would, therefore, submits that merely by pointing out that an unreserved category candidate scoring less than the reserved category candidate at TAIT finding place in the merit list would be misleading unless even the respective scores at the TET/CTET are considered. He would, therefore, submits that merely by pointing out that an unreserved category candidate scoring less than the reserved category candidate at TAIT finding place in the merit list would be misleading unless even the respective scores at the TET/CTET are considered. He would submit that in any case this principle has been applied uniformly and cannot be taken exception of. 18. The learned Advocate General would further submit that the Pavitra Portal is a complex matter. The scores at TET, CTET and TAIT are not the only relevant considerations. It is merely a platform so that the candidates can see the vacancies and opt for particular institutions and the posts. It is a common portal for all the educational institutions across the State irrespective of whether it is a Zilla Parishad run school or school being run by local bodies but even the private institutions, aided or unaided. The lists are prepared on the basis of the options exercised by the candidates and availability of the posts according to the merit. Therefore, merely by pointing out the individual merit without the other relevant considerations would not be sufficient to establish discrimination or arbitrariness in preparation of the merit list. 19. As regards the stand of the petitioners about the notification having been put up on the portal after preparation of the merit list, the learned Advocate General would submit that the stand is fallacious. He would submit that the office memorandum was issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, of the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India dated 01.07.1998 and 04.04.2018. It was expressly notified that migration of a reserved category candidate to unreserved category would not be available to the candidates of the reserved category who had secured relaxation in respect of age, experience etc. He would submit that the notification dated 26.02.2024 put up on the website was nothing but a reiteration of the extant policy which is being followed consistently. He would submit that it is not a matter of justifying the merit list ex post facto. 20. Lastly, the learned Advocate General would submit that the decisions cited on behalf of the petitioners are peculiar to the individual cases and do not address the exact issue in the factual scenario, particularly in the light of Pradeep Kumar (supra). 21. The rival submissions now fall for our consideration. 20. Lastly, the learned Advocate General would submit that the decisions cited on behalf of the petitioners are peculiar to the individual cases and do not address the exact issue in the factual scenario, particularly in the light of Pradeep Kumar (supra). 21. The rival submissions now fall for our consideration. As can be appreciated, the fate of these matters and the challenge put up to the merit list hinges on the issue which we have formulated herein above. 22. Whether the TET – CTET merely provides for eligibility of a candidate or whether it is something more than that, touching the quality of education to be imparted is the basic issue common to all these petitions. In our considered view, with respect, the issue has been squarely covered by Pradeep Kumar (supra) and no different view is possible. The observations in Pradeep Kumar (supra) from paragraphs No.23 to 27 are relevant and read as under : “23. The other distinguishing aspect in Vikas Sankhala (supra) is that the candidates who had applied under the reserved category belonged to Rajasthan. For the selection and aspirants from the same State i.e., Rajasthan, the Court allowed such candidates to migrate to the unreserved category. In the present case, however, the candidates (i.e. the respondents) belong to States other than Delhi. Being OBC (outsiders), they could have been considered only under the unreserved category if they secure at least 60% marks in the CTET. The respondents admittedly did not secure 60% and thus were ineligible. Moreover, an OBC candidate not certified in the State/Territory outside of Delhi cannot be eligible to avail of employment in reserved category posts earmarked for OBCs who are certified by the Delhi Government. 24. It is important to keep in mind that the respondents are competing for general category vacancies. All others in this group have obtained their CTET eligibility qualification, securing the normal pass marks without availing any relaxation of pass norms. On the other hand, the respondents despite their lesser marks in the CTET examination, could qualify only because they availed the relaxation benefits as OBC category examinees. Their eligibility qualification is secured under relaxed norms meant for OBC category and therefore we do not think it is proper to consider them to be eligible for the general category vacancies and contention to the contrary is unacceptable. 25. Their eligibility qualification is secured under relaxed norms meant for OBC category and therefore we do not think it is proper to consider them to be eligible for the general category vacancies and contention to the contrary is unacceptable. 25. The respondents with their CTET qualification under relaxed norms would be eligible for OBC category posts provided their OBC status is certified and recognized by the Delhi government. But such not being the case, they are ineligible for the reserved category vacancies. To allow them to migrate and compete for the open category vacancies would not be permissible simply because, they have secured the CTET qualification with relaxation of pass marks meant for those belonging to the OBC category. As the respondents have not secured the normal pass marks for general category, their eligibility for the general category vacancies is not secured. Therefore, their performance in the selection examination would be of no relevance, in the present process. 26. As earlier discussed, this case concerns qualifications obtained with concession in pass marks. Such concession would have a direct impact on standards of competence and merit in the recruitment of Special Education Teachers. The principles of reservation under the Constitution of India are intended to be confined to a specifically earmarked category and the unreserved category must be protected, to avoid dilution of competence and merit. If Vikas Sankhala (supra) is interpreted shorn of its peculiar facts, as has been suggested by the respondents’ counsel, it would in our perception, considering that respondents secured the qualification under relaxed norms, would lead to dilution of merit in the unreserved category. The arguments made to the contrary by the respondents is therefore rejected. 27. In view of the forgoing, the High Court and the Tribunal erred in granting relief to the respondents. The impugned judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 557 of 2019 dated 21.1.2019 is set aside and this appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.” As can be noticed, the decision in the matter of Vikas Sankhala (supra) has also been incidentally distinguished by Pradeep Kumar (supra). The observations in paragraph No.26 even address the impact on the standards of competence and merit in respect of recruitment of the teachers. It has been held that relaxation in qualification would lead to dilution of the standards of education. 23. The observations in paragraph No.26 even address the impact on the standards of competence and merit in respect of recruitment of the teachers. It has been held that relaxation in qualification would lead to dilution of the standards of education. 23. True it is, as laid down in catena of decisions that while undertaking preparation of any list in respect of a recruitment processes providing for vertical reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India or horizontal one, under Articles 15(3) and 16(1), invariably 50% of the seats are to be allotted purely on merit at the qualifying examination irrespective the categories to which the candidates belong. It is thereafter that the respective reservations of different classes have to be worked out. This is being consistently followed in the light of the celebrated judgment in the matter of Indira Sawhney Vs. Union of India and Ors.; 2000 (1) SCC 168 . 24. Saurav Yadav (supra), followed thereafter in many matters including Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (supra), which in turn also refers to Sadhana Singh Dangi (supra), reiterated this principle. In our considered view, the submission of the learned advocates for the petitioners referring to the decisions in the matter of Saurav Yadav, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Sadhana Singh Dangi (supra), and even referring to the decisions of the division benches of this Court in the matter of Charushila Tukaram Chaudhari and Sayali Nitin Inamke (supra), is not relevant for the determination of the issue before this Court in these matters which is as to if having become eligible by deriving the benefit of reservation and having scored less than 60% which is the benchmark provided for passing the TET/CTET, the candidates of the reserved category can be allowed to migrate to the unreserved category solely on the basis of their merit at the selection examination - TAIT. This is the precise issue considered and decided in the matter of Pradeep Kumar (supra), in the process distinguishing the other judgment relied upon by the petitioners, in the matter of Vikas Sankhala (supra). 25. The dispute in Saurav Yadav (supra) was regarding adjustment of vertical reservation vis a vis horizontal reservation for women. This is not the issue before us. 26. 25. The dispute in Saurav Yadav (supra) was regarding adjustment of vertical reservation vis a vis horizontal reservation for women. This is not the issue before us. 26. Once having understood the peculiarity of the matters in hand in the light of Pradeep Kumar (supra), the performance at the TET/CTET also being a relevant consideration in light of Section 23 of the RTE Act, going to the root of quality and standard of the education to be imparted and is not merely a screening or preliminary examination, the decisions in the matter of K. Manjusree Vs. State of A.P. and Ors.; AIR 2008 SC 1470 , Jitendra Kumar Singh and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.; 2010 (3) SCC 119 , Ramnaresh @ Rinku Kushwah and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.; 2024 DGLS (SC) 759, Deependra Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.; AIR 2024 SC 2147 , would not be applicable to the fact situation of the matters in hand. In all these matters the issue was regarding the performance at the qualifying examination, wherein following the consistent line in the light of Indira Sawhney (supra), the reserved category candidates were allowed to migrate to the unreserved category purely based on their merits at the qualifying examination. Precisely for this reason even the decisions in respect of relaxations obtained by a reserved category candidate in respect of fees and age limit being not considered as operating against the claim of the reserved category candidates for migration to the unreserved category, would not be applicable to the matters in hand. 27. As regards the stand of the petitioners that they were not made known that they would not be entitled to migration and it is only after publication of the merit list that the notification in question dated 26.02.2024 was uploaded, as has been rightly submitted by the learned Advocate General, this was the extant policy as per the D.O.P.T. memoranda dated 01.07.1998 and 04.04.2018. Again, no such prior intimation in the form of a condition in the advertisement or notification would be necessary inasmuch as this is the law of the land which has been declared by the Supreme Court. Since it is a matter of following policy of reservation, as has been rightly put by the learned Advocate General, notification dated 26.02.2024 is nothing but reiteration of the policy. Since it is a matter of following policy of reservation, as has been rightly put by the learned Advocate General, notification dated 26.02.2024 is nothing but reiteration of the policy. It is not a case of changing the rules of the game. Having derived concession to reach the benchmark, for appearing at TAIT, the petitioners can be said to have knowledge about the consequences. Even without such notification dated 26.02.2024, the same principle would apply, preventing them from migrating to the unreserved category. Therefore, even this submission of the learned advocates for the petitioners is not legally tenable. 28. Their can be no debate as regards importance of TET/CTET, qua the standard of the education to be maintained, as interpreted and laid down in Pradeep Kumar (supra). The challenge to the merit list which prevents the candidates who have become eligible to appear at the TAIT in spite of having scored less than the benchmark of 60% at the TET/CTET, to migrate to the unreserved category, is not legally sustainable. Writ Petition No.8610/2024 29. Additionally the challenge in this petition is to the merit list as being unconstitutional and contrary to the policy of reservation. The submission of the learned advocate Mr. Rathod for the petitioners is fallacious. It needs to be emphasized that reserved category candidates who have secured the benchmark of 60% at the TET/CTET and are eligible to appear at the TAIT can easily migrate to the unreserved category in light of the trite principle reiterated by the Supreme Court time and again as discussed herein above. Since it is a matter of quality and standard of education to be imparted by the teachers teaching to standard I to VIII, they cannot be made to face the challenge by the reserved category candidates who were not eligible but for relaxation of up to 5% of marks at the basic TET/CTET examination. 30. The affidavit-in-reply filed in Mr. Rathod’s matter, detail statistics has been provided to demonstrate that following the policy of reservation, many reserved category candidates could easily migrate to the unreserved category having not received any concession in their score at TET. It is pointed out that 2410 candidates belonging to reserved category who had not availed concession in marks form 68.85% of the list of 3500 candidates. It is pointed out that 2410 candidates belonging to reserved category who had not availed concession in marks form 68.85% of the list of 3500 candidates. It is also pointed out that over all percentage of reserved category candidates is 90.17% (9995) in respect of total 11085 posts under the merit list published on 25.02.2024. It has also been pointed out that in the lists published on 25.06.2024 and 11.07.2024, 69.12% (828) and 88.81% (2936) candidates respectively, could easily migrate having not availed any concession in respect of the score at TET. It cannot be said, therefore, that the norm applied for preventing migration of reserved candidates who were otherwise not even eligible to appear at the TAIT from migrating to unreserved category based solely on their merit at the TAIT, is not discriminatory or unconstitutional. WP No.7922/2024 and WP No.4827/2024 31. In these two writ petitions, apart from the issue involved in the other writ petitions one additional issue has been raised. All these petitioners claim to have completed their education through Urdu medium. They are, therefore, aspiring to be appointed as assistant teachers in Urdu medium schools. Their stand is that due to non- availability of candidates from Urdu medium, about 1150 vacancies remained in spite of the recruitment process having been undertaken. Though they have become eligible to appear at TAIT, having derived concession of 5% marks in the scoring at the TET/CTET, now that they have cleared TAIT and have reasonably fared well, it would be appropriate if they can be considered for filling these number of vacant seats. They are aggrieved that their such reasonable request is also not being considered by the respondent No.2 – Commissioner. 32. In our considered view, if at all, all these petitioners having become eligible to appear at TAIT by getting the concession to reach the benchmark for becoming eligible to appear at TAIT, merely because they have some additional advantage having themselves completed education through Urdu medium and could be of some aid to the Urdu medium schools in imparting education and merely because there are seats going vacant, they cannot be permitted to migrate to the general category, the common thread being prohibition to such migration to unreserved category once having derived the benefit of concession, to be eligible to appear at the qualifying examination – TAIT. 33. 33. It would be a matter of policy for the State Government to explore as to how to come out of the situation when these number of posts are going vacant in respect of teachers to be appointed in Urdu medium schools. This Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be loath in taking some view in the policy matters. Consequently, even both these petitions are liable to be dismissed. 34. For the aforementioned reasons all the writ petitions are dismissed. 34. All pending civil applications are disposed of. 35. Rule is discharged.