Physically handicapped candidates, who avail horizontal reservation, are assimilated into the respective categories of General/SC/ST/OBC after selection, and therefore, they are not entitled to separate cut-off marks in the preliminary examination.

1. - The writ-petitioner, a contender for the post of Civil Judge (JD)-cum-Judicial Magistrate First Class in the Rajasthan Judicial Service (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Service"), seeks to invoke the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court to adjudge his perceived omission on the part of the respondents to announce the cut off marks for the physically handicapped candidates in the recently concluded preliminary examination held in course of the process of direct recruitment initiated by the advertisement dated 25.11.2013 of the Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, to be illegal and invalid.

2. We have heard Mr.Rajak Haidar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.K.Mathur, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The facts lie in a short compass. In the aforestated advertisement for filling up 187 posts of Civil Judge (JD)-cum-Judicial Magistrate First Class in the Service, 5 were earmarked for physically handicapped candidates. The advertisement inter-alia disclosed in clear terms that reservation qua the physically handicapped candidates would be horizontal i.e. on their selection qua categories i.e. Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/OBC/ General/Women-they would be assimilated/integrated respectively in such category. The advertisement thus did not conceptualize the physically handicapped candidates to be a distinctly different category from those of General/Women/SC/ST/OBC and logically so according to the enjoinment of horizontal reservation. The scheme of selection envisages a preliminary examination followed by main examination and interview. Thus, clause 14(2) stipulated that the number of candidates to be admitted to the main examination would be fifteen times the total number of vacancies (category wise) but in the said range all those candidates who secure the same percentage of marks on the last cut-off would be admitted to the main examination. The other clauses of the advertisement being not pertinent for the issue seeking adjudication are not being referred to for the sake of brevity.

4. Be that as it may, the petitioner responded to the advertisement by offering himself as a physically handicapped candidate. He was duly admitted to the preliminary examination and he did partake therein. The results were declared on 8.4.2014, which according to him, disclosed the cut-off marks for every category mentioned in the advertisement other than that of the physically handicapped candidates. Being aggrieved, he submitted a representation on 15.4.2014 which he has pleaded was not responded to. Situated thus, he has turned to this Court contending inter-alia violation of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (as amended) (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") and also the stipulation in the advertisement providing for declaration of cut-off marks for every category of candidates so as to facilitate admission of fifteen times the total number of candidates category-wise to the main examination.

5. In their reply, the respondents while stoutly refuting the assailment have clarified that the representation submitted by the petitioner had been duly considered by the examination committee and its decision to reject the same has meanwhile been communicated to him. While contending that there is no provision in the Rules for declaring the cut-off marks for the physically handicapped candidates and that the preliminary examination is only a process for short listing the candidates, they have asserted that the issue raised is squarely covered by the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in D.B.Civil Special Appeal No.445/2004 Himanshu Kachhwaha v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & anr. (decided on 16.8.2011) and D.B.Civil Special Appeal No.881/2002 Bhuvnashwar Singh v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & anr. (decided on 16.8.2011) . The answering respondents have asserted as well that the results of the preliminary examination have been declared str