JUDGMENT :

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. These appeals, by leave are preferred by certain candidates who were not parties to a batch of writ petitions filed by some candidates. The petitioners had questioned the legality of the cutoff dated 01.06.2018 relating to recruitment to the post of Teacher Gr. III (Level-I) for the Tribal Sub-Plan area (TSP area). Those petitioners (arrayed as respondents hereafter called "contesting respondents" or "writ petitioners") sought directions to the State to prepare a revised cum fresh merit list while applying the proper procedure for reservation, in accord with the notification dated 04.07.2016 (especially Point No. 11). By the impugned judgment, a learned Single Judge allowed the claims. The appellants, who are not parties, claim to be affected.

2. The facts are that the State of Rajasthan issued an advertisement No. 2/2018 dated 12.04.2018 for recruitment to the post of 5431 Teachers Grade-III (Level-I) - General Education and 72 teachers Grade-III (Level-I) -Special Education for TSP area. The minimum qualification indicated was Senior Secondary with BSTC and having passed Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers ('REET')/RTET. The writ petitioners alleged that they possessed the prescribed qualification and that they had submitted their on-line application forms. A district and category-wise vacancy was also issued by the State, which was placed on record.

3. The contesting respondents had submitted that after completion of the process, the State issued the cut-off list on 01.06.2018. In terms of the cut off list, all the candidates, who had applied as TSP (General), TSP (SC) and TSP (ST) (widow and divorcee), were selected and the cut-off for male and female TSP (ST) was indicated as 51.33% marks. The contesting respondents complained about the procedure adopted by the State for determining merit of TSP (ST) category candidates, in issuing the cut-off date 01.06.2018: it was contended that that was arbitrary and contrary to settled procedure. It was submitted that as against 5431 posts, for the TSP area advertised, the State issued a select list for only 4264 posts, resulting in 1167 posts remaining unfilled. It was argued that as far as these vacancies were concerned, the State had not prepared the merit list. It was urged importantly that the state illegally did not consider the candidature of those securing below 60% marks in RTET/REET examination against the TSP(General) category, which is contrary to the applicable stipulation, by which ST candidates of the scheduled area, the minimum requirement is 36% marks only. Therefore, candidates securing less than 60% marks, up to 36% a minimum of marks were entitled to be considered against the position of TSP (General) category. The State contended that the petitioners, wrongly interpreted the rules as intending that the minimum marks were to be 60%. This resulted in a number of unfilled vacancies in the category of TSP (General), as the state did not migrate ST candidates, who got less than 60% marks in RTET/REET from ST to General, which is contrary to the entire scheme and various notifications issued in this regard.

4. As a result the writ petitioners sought directions to the State to redraw the list by treating the candidates, who have got marks 36% and above as eligible to be considered against the category of TSP (General) in terms of their merit and sought a further direction that since they were low in merit vis-a-vis candidates selected under the TSP (ST) category ought to be given appointment on their merit either in TSP (General)/TSP(ST).

5. The state contended in its reply, and in its submissions that 5431 posts were advertised for TSP area, out of which 50% seats were kept for General category candidates; 50% seats for reserved categories. The merit list, it was submitted, was prepared in terms of Clause 13 of the advertisement, which required the candidates, who possessed 60% marks in RTET/REET; however, the incumbents belongin