JUDGMENT :

1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. Vinay Bairagra, learned AGP and Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned Assistant Government Pleaders waive service of notice of Rule for the respondent - State.

2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, these petitions are taken up for its final disposal.

3. In all these petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for a direction that the action of the PSI Recruitment Board of including reserved category candidates in the list of general category candidates in the preliminary merit list of the preliminary exams, for the purpose of appearing in the main examination for the post of PSI, Class III is unlawful and in violation of Article 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have further prayed that a fresh merit list of candidates for appearing in the main examination be prepared by calling upon three times the candidates of each category i.e. reserved category and general category to the number of vacancies notified for each of the categories without including candidates of the reserved category in general category for the purposes of the said recruitment.

4. For the purposes of this judgment, the facts of SCA No.8928 of 2022 are considered.

4.1. An advertisement for the post of PSI, Class III has been issued by the Recruitment Board on 15.3.2021 inviting online applications for the purpose of recruitment to the post of PSI, Class III. A total of 1382 posts are to be filled in. The petitioners are candidates who have undergone the physical examination and the preliminary examination and aspire to appear for the main examination. It is their case that in accordance with Clause 16 of the advertisement, read with Rule 8(f) of the Posts of Sub Inspector, Class III (Combined, Competitive Examination for Direct Recruitment) Rules, 2021 (for short, hereinafter referred to as `the Rules'), the number of candidates that are to be called for the purpose of appearing in the main examination are three times the candidates of each category i.e. reserved category and general category to the number of vacancies notified.

5. The lead arguments have been made by Shri S. P. Majmudar, learned counsel for the petitioners of SCA No.8928 of 2022. He made the following submissions:

5.1. Inviting the Court's attention to Clause 16 of the advertisement Mr. Majmudar would submit that the Clause indicating that for appearing in a main examination, three times the candidates of each category have to be called.

5.2. Mr. Majmudar would then invite the attention of the Court to the Rules and submit that in accordance with Rule 8 the stages and mode of examination were physical test, preliminary examination and main examination. He would submit that for the purposes of preparing the final merit list, marks of the preliminary examination are not to be considered for preparing the select list. The preliminary examination is only a screening test and the marks of such examination are therefore not to be added for counting merit.

5.3. Relying on Rule 8(f) of the Rules in context of Clause 16 of the advertisement, he would submit that the candidates who passed the preliminary examination shall be called for the main examination. The number of candidates to be called for main examination shall be about three times the number of vacancies requisitioned. The minimum qualifying standard shall not in any case be less than 40% of the marks in the preliminary examination.

5.4 Mr. Majmudar would submit that what the respondents have done is that rather than calling three times the number of candidates category wise, the respondents have included candidates belonging to the reserved category in the general category as well. In other words, they h