Ashutosh Kumar, J.—Both the writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

2. CWJC No. 1586 of 2023 (Akash Kumar) has been preferred seeking quashing of the final result of 31st Bihar Judicial Services Competitive Examination dated 10.10.2022 published by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter called “the Commission”) to the extent that it relates to him as even though he had obtained the cut-off marks for Backward Class Category but was denied final selection on account of selection of one Nishant Ranjan in Backward Class Category who had got marks equal to the cut-off marks meant for Unreserved Category.

3. From the averments made in the writ petition and the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties viz. the Commission and the State, it was found that petitioner/Akash Kumar had secured 495 marks and was listed just below two of the Backward Category candidates, who had obtained same marks as the petitioner.

4. Twenty-six seats are said to have been earmarked for Reserved Category candidates which became full with two of the candidates at Sl. Nos. 243 and 244. It was further found that the candidate of the Backward Class Category who had obtained 536 marks is just below the last of the Unreserved Category, who has also obtained the same marks i.e. 536.

5. The learned advocate for the petitioner/ Akash Kumar has submitted that the first of the successful candidates in the Backward Class Category qualifies for being accommodated in the Unreserved Category which clearly makes room for one more person of Backward Category in the zone of consideration for appointment and, in that case, it would be the petitioner/Akash Kumar who is next in line.

6. Though initially Mr. Pandey, learned advocate for the Commission came up with the plea that the entire vacancy meant for Unreserved Category has been filed because of 35 % horizontal reservation for woman but, on perusal of the records, conceded that two of the Unreserved Category candidates had not joined ultimately, making way for movement of candidates from Backward Category to Unreserved Category thereby leaving one place vacant in the Backward Category for accommodating the petitioner.

7. Simultaneously, Mr. Pandey pointed out that another candidate Viz. Harindra Kumar Rai, who incidentally is the first candidate in the unselected Unreserved Category candidates has also filed a writ petition bearing CWJC. No. 4680 of 2023 and that should also be taken into account before finally deciding the issue.

8. As such, on our direction, CWJC No. 4680 of 2023 was also listed along with CWJC No. 1586 of 2023 (Akash Kumar).

9. It was pointed out to us by Mr. Piyush Lal, learned advocate for the High Court that 88 seats were earmarked for Unreserved Category including 33% of women candidates, out of which only 87 candidates were recommended. Out of those 87, one person viz. Ashish Chandra did not turn up whereas appointment letters were not issued to two of the candidates viz. Rohit Kumar Tripathi and Rakhi Kumari who were found to be involved in Criminal Cases, thus leaving three vacant positions.

10. Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, learned advocate for the State, however, submits that there was one vacancy for orthopaedically/ physically challenged person which was not filled up, but such vacancy has been carried over to the next examination viz. 32nd Judicial Service Examination.

11. Though, this decision also appears to be questionable but, for the moment, we are not taking up any issue regarding such carry over of orthopaedically/ physically challenged seats for the ensuing examination. We say so for the reason that in accord with what has been directed in Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) & Anr. vs. U.P. Public Service Commission & Ors., 2008 (17) SCC 703, the vacancy ought to be filled up in the same examination process.

12. Be that as it may, because of non-joining of one Ashish Chandra, one position definitely falls vacant which should go to the first of the