ORDER : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs :- “a) The petitioner may be declared qualified for the Interview : b) The Respondent may be directed to migrate the Petitioner from OBC Category to General-ESM Category: c) The Respondent may be directed to allow the Petitioner to appear in the interview; d) Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and properr may kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioner.” 2. The brief facts as noticed by this Court are that the respondents issued an advertisement dated 09.04.2024 notifying vacancies for recruitment to the Cadre of Civil Judge, 2024. The petitioner, possessing all requisite qualifications, applied for the aforementioned post under the OBC NCL category on 07.05.2024. 2.1 A corrigendum was issued by the respondent on 08.05.2024 i.e. on the last date of submitting the application whereby one post for Ex-Servicemen under General Category was notified. The petitioner, being an Ex-Serviceman, accordingly edited his application form to submit under the Ex-servicemen Category. Subsequently, the admission card was issued to the petitioner, who appeared in and successfully cleared the preliminary examination held on 23.06.2024, as per the result declared on 15.07.2024. 2.2 The respondent again issued a corrigendum dated 27.07.2024 whereby the cut-off marks in category of General (Ex- Servicemen) was issued. The petitioner, having qualified for the main examination, appeared therein on 31.08.2024 and 01.09.2024. The result for the same was declared on 01.10.2024 wherein the petitioner was declared unqualified for appearing in the interview. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Mr. Vikas Balia, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Sachin Saraswat, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Ex- Servicemen reserved category candidate can claim general category seat under horizontal reservation based on merit. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had secured marks exceeding the minimum requirement for eligibility under the Ex-servicemen category. 3.1 Learned counsel further submitted that as per the corrigendum dated 08.05.2024, candidates belonging to the Ex- servicemen category were deemed eligible for interview upon obtaining minimum 30% marks in each law paper and 35% marks in aggregate in the main examination. Learned counsel also submitted that despite fulfilling these criteria, the petitioner was overlooked for migration from OBC NCL Category to General Category for Ex-servicemen reservation. Learned counsel also submitted that despite fulfilling these criteria, the petitioner was overlooked for migration from OBC NCL Category to General Category for Ex-servicemen reservation. 3.2 Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner did not avail any age relaxation that could have barred his migration from OBC NCL category to General Ex-servicemen category. It was further contended that when horizontal reservation for women (special reservation) in general/open category is applied, candidates from all categories, including SC, ST, and OBC, are entitled to consideration against posts reserved for General Category (Woman). 3.3 Learned counsel further submitted that posts reserved for General category (Ex-servicemen) were available to all Ex- servicemen candidates, necessitating migration. It was further contended that though the petitioner was permitted to apply under Ex-servicemen category within OBC NCL, but the reservation was actually available under General Ex-servicemen Category. It was further submitted that the petitioner's case merits consideration under General Category (Ex-servicemen) as reserved category candidates can claim general category seats under horizontal reservation based on merit. 3.4 In support of the aforementioned submissions, learned counsel has relied upon the following judgments :- i. Deependra Yadav & ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., reported in AIR 2024 SC 2147 . ii. Ramnresh & Ors. VS. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9628/2024 along with other connected matters on 20.08.2024. iii. Saurav Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Reported in AIR 2021 SC 233 . iv. Megha Sheety Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. rendered by this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.17/2013 on 26.07.2013. v. Asha Vs. The President, District Selection Committee /Collector & ors. rendered by Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.3929/2015 on 30.3.2016. 4. Ms. Abhilasha Bora, Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that Rule 2(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex-Servicemen) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Rules of 1988’) provides for 5% reservation of posts in State Services for Ex-servicemen, to be filled through direct recruitment. It was further submitted that sub-rule 3 of Rule 2 of the Rules of 1988 stipulates such reservation to be horizontal and category-wise. Sub-rule 3 of Rule 2 of the Rules of 1988 read as under :- “The reservation of vacancies for ex-servicemen as specified in sub-rule (1) shall be category wise in direct recruitment. It was further submitted that sub-rule 3 of Rule 2 of the Rules of 1988 stipulates such reservation to be horizontal and category-wise. Sub-rule 3 of Rule 2 of the Rules of 1988 read as under :- “The reservation of vacancies for ex-servicemen as specified in sub-rule (1) shall be category wise in direct recruitment. In the event of non-availability of the eligible and suitable ex-servicemen in a particular year, the vacancies so reserved for them shall be filled in accordance with the normal procedure and equal number of vacancies shall be carried forward to the next recruitment year and thereafter such vacancies would lapse.” 4.1 Learned counsel for the respondent has also drawn attention of this Court towards the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, wherein reservation for Ex-servicemen has been provided in the recruitment process through the addition of sub-rule 7 to Rule 10. New sub-rule 7 reads as under :- “7. Reservation of vacancies for Ex-servicemen – Reservation of vacancies for Ex-servicemen in the recruitment to the service shall be in accordance with the rules of the State issued from time to time.” 4.2 Learned counsel further submitted that pursuant to the Official Gazette publication of the amendment, necessary corrigendum was issued and vacancies were revised accordingly. The corrigendum clearly provided that Ex-servicemen reservation would operate horizontally against category-wise vacancies. It was further submitted that the petitioner made a conscious decision to apply under OBC NCL category with horizontal Ex-servicemen reservation. 4.3 Learned counsel also submitted that the initial advertisement dated 09.04.2024 was modified by a revised notification dated 07.05.2024 and subsequent corrigendum dated 08.05.2024, clearly stipulating the provision for Ex-servicemen reservation. It was contended that the present petition, filed on 15.10.2024 seeking migration from OBC-NCL to General Ex-servicemen Category, comes after the corrigendum dated 07.05.2024 had specifically allocated one seat for Ex-servicemen under General Category. 4.4 Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner with open eyes accepted the Ex-servicemen OBC-NCL Category and did not opt for Ex-servicemen General Category, despite the advertisement / corrigendum specifying only one seat for Ex- servicemen reservation. As the petitioner did not challenge the corrigendum dated 07.05.2024 at the relevant time, this belated challenge on 15.10.2024 cannot be entertained. 4.4 Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner with open eyes accepted the Ex-servicemen OBC-NCL Category and did not opt for Ex-servicemen General Category, despite the advertisement / corrigendum specifying only one seat for Ex- servicemen reservation. As the petitioner did not challenge the corrigendum dated 07.05.2024 at the relevant time, this belated challenge on 15.10.2024 cannot be entertained. 4.5 Learned counsel also submitted that after the preliminary examination, the petitioner had secured cut-off marks while clearing it in vertical category of OBC-NCL and thus, he was fixed in the OBC-NCL and could not have been considered against the General Ex-servicemen Category thereafter. 4.6 Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner secured 120 marks in the main examination conducted on 31.08.2024 and 01.09.2024, whereas the cut-off for OBC NCL category was 123 marks. Consequently, the petitioner was rightfully declared unsuccessful and ineligible for interview. It was further submitted that no candidate from General Category (Ex- servicemen) secured the minimum qualifying marks in the main examination, hence no candidates were called for interview. 4.7 Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner had previously filed D.B. Civil Writ Petition no.751/2024 on 02.05.2024, seeking invalidation of the advertisement dated 09.04.2024 regarding implementation of amendments made vide notification dated 16.03.2024 and gazette notification dated 28.03.2024 concerning Ex-servicemen vacancy reservation and age relaxation. It was further submitted that the petitioner had not disclosed the factum of an earlier petition filed by him, after which corrigendum notifications dated 7 th , 8 th , and 9 th May, 2024 were also issued for vacancy re-determination. 4.8 Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner, without challenging the corrigendum notification and with full awareness of the single seat allocation for Ex-servicemen General category, appeared for the preliminary examination on 23.06.2024, results of which were declared in July, 2024. 4.9 Learned counsel had cited the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rekha Sharma Vs. The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Civil Appeal No.5051/2023) decided on 21.08.2024, which specifically held that candidates who consciously participated in the selection process cannot subsequently challenge the advertisement or selection methodology upon being declared unsuccessful in the preliminary examination. 4.10 In support of above contention, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the following judgments :- I. Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Dr. Megha Sharma & ors. 4.10 In support of above contention, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the following judgments :- I. Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Dr. Megha Sharma & ors. (D.B. Review Petition No.180/2019), decided by this Court on 23.03.2020; relevant para whereof reads as under :- “12. The upshot of the aforesaid judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and division benches of this Court is that migration is not to be applied while shortlisting the candidates for interview/main exam after subjecting them to screening test and it has to be applied at the time of final selection i.e. preparing the final merit list only. Since, there was no categorywise interview, the judgement dated 8.5.2019 qua its findings recorded in paragraph 2 at internal page 8, suffers from the error apparent on its face. Therefore, the review petitions are allowed, the judgement dated 8.5.2019 is recalled and set aside to the extent directions contained therein requiring the RPSC to subject all the candidates declared successful in the screening process together for interview, prepare a combined merit list and thereafter work out the revise merit list giving due weightage to the rule of migration. ” ii. Sunita Meena Vs. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1244/2022) decided by this Court on 20.04.2022; relevant para whereof reads as under :- “34.The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Saurav Yadav (supra) has now settled the controversy with regard to principles applicable in the matter of vertical and horizontal migration while preparing merit list, that being a case specific to claim of OBC (female) securing higher marks than the last candidate appointed in general category of general (female). In the light of consistent view by this Court in series of decisions cited hereinabove, the rule of migration of reserved category candidate from his/her own category to general category to be placed in the merit list would be applicable while preparing final merit list and not when the exercise of shortlisting of candidates categorywise is done at the stage of screening by way of preliminary examinations, as has been done in the present case. Issue whether the principle of migration would apply even at the stage of shortlisting the candidates for being admitted to main examination was neither raised nor decided in the case of Saurav Yadav (supra). Issue whether the principle of migration would apply even at the stage of shortlisting the candidates for being admitted to main examination was neither raised nor decided in the case of Saurav Yadav (supra). Learned counsel for the petitioner could not bring to our notice any authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in this regard. Therefore, we have no reason to take a different view than what has been taken in the cases of Dharamveer Tholia (supra), Hanuman Jat (supra), Megha Sharma (supra), Khushi Ram Gurjar (supra) and Garima Sharma (supra)which are the judgments rendered by taking into consideration the scheme of examination and governing rules of recruitment analogous to those applicable in the case in hand.” 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case as well as the precedent law cited by counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the petitioner made a conscious decision to appear as an OBC-NCL category candidate in the vertical category while also opting for Ex-servicemen in the horizontal category. The advertisement dated 07.05.2024 culminated in the petitioner's disqualification on merits at the main examination stage. 6. This Court observes that the petitioner underwent the examination process under OBC-NCL Category without protest, despite OBC-NCL carrying no Ex-servicemen reservation. However, in the absence of any OBC-NCL Ex-servicemen post, the petitioner's status remains that of an unsuccessful OBC-NCL candidate. 7. This Court finds that while Rule 1(2) of the Rajasthan Judicial Service (Amendment) Rules, 2024 and Sub-rule 3 of Rule 2 of the Rules of 1988 provide for Ex-servicemen reservation as horizontal reservation, and that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to either challenge the corrigendum when issued pursuant to the advertisement or contest it promptly, rather than allowing his rights to lapse. In the absence of horizontal reservation for Ex- servicemen within OBC-NCL, the question of migration from OBC- NCL to General Category under Ex-servicemen quota cannot be entertained, particularly because the petitioner participated in the recruitment process with open eyes as Ex-Servicemen in OBC- NCL category while there was no reservation for Ex-Servicemen in OBC-NCL category. 8. This Court observes that the petitioner did not challenge the corrigendum specifying one seat for Ex-servicemen General Category reservation and continued to take part in the process. 8. This Court observes that the petitioner did not challenge the corrigendum specifying one seat for Ex-servicemen General Category reservation and continued to take part in the process. The petitioner, in pursuance of his status in vertical category OBC- NCL and Ex-servicemen category, cleared the preliminary examination held on 23.06.2024, for which the result was declared on 15.07.2024. In pursuance of such successful qualifying to the main examination, the petitioner appeared in the mains examination with open eyes in the continuing category of OBC-NCL (Ex-servicemen) Category on 31.8.2024 and 1.09.2024. The result of the mains examination was declared on 01.10.2024 and the petitioner was declared unsuccessful on merits. The petitioner made a belated challenge on 15.10.2024 to such result. The petitioner had secured 120 marks in the mains examination conducted on 31.08.2024 and 01.09.2024 whereas the cut-off for OBC-NCL category was 123 marks, thus disqualifying the petitioner for the next phase of interview. This Court is of the firm opinion that candidates who have consciously participated in the selection process cannot subsequently challenge the advertisement or selection methodology upon being declared unsuccessful at a particular stage. Such finding is also supported by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rekha Sharma (supra). 9. In view of the forgoing, the present writ petition is dismissed.