JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.

1. Petitioners by way of these writ petitions challenge action of the respondent-Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short, 'RPSC') in calling for few candidates for various categories for interview without declaring cut-off marks for screening test conducted by them.

2. Brief facts for the purpose of disposal of these writ petitions are being noted.

3. The RPSC issued an advertisement on 13/04/2018 inviting applications for appointment on the post of Assistant Agriculture Research Officer (Agriculture Chemistry) in terms of the Rajasthan Agriculture Subordinate Service Rules, 1978. In all 38 posts were advertised out of which 5 posts were reserved for OBC (General), 2 posts for OBC (Women). A corrigendum was thereafter issued on 13/09/2019 whereby 1 post for MBC category was notified. Another corrigendum was issued on 13/09/2019 providing that the selection process would be based on 40% weightage of marks obtained in screening test and out of remaining 60%, 20% weightage was to be in relation to academic record and 40% on the personal interview which was to be of 100 marks.

4. The screening test was conducted on 29/05/2019 and the petitioners in both the writ petitions appeared in the screening test as per their respective category the result of which was declared on 17/12/2019 and 119 candidates were declared successful and shortlisted for calling for interview.

5. The grievance raised in these writ petitions is that the result of the screening test was neither declared category-wise nor cutoff marks were declared and the petitioners, therefore, raised an apprehension that the candidates who may belong to general category and had obtained less marks than the petitioners would be called for interview while the petitioners have been left out.

6. The RPSC has supported the result and submitted that the result of 199 candidates was declared provisionally in the ratio of 1:3 against total 39 posts so advertised. It is stated that since the RPSC conducted the screening test which is to shortlist the candidates and to check the eligibility, therefore, there was no occasion to the RPSC to declare cut-off marks of each category and it was sufficient to declare the result of the screening test in the ratio of 1:3 against the advertised vacancies. It is further submitted that the reservation criteria shall apply only at the stage of final selection and not at every stage of selection process like screening test, shortlisting/preliminary examination and in support of the same, reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered in Dharmveer Tholia & Ors. vs. State (Raj. & Anr.) 2003 (3) WLC 399; Hanuman Jat & Ors. vs. State (Revenue Dept.) (DBSAW No. 635/2016), decided on 13/05/2016; Sangeeta Yadav vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (SBCWP No. 20095/2012), decided on 14/12/2012 and Megha Sharma vs. RPSC (SBCWP No. 13637/2017), decided on 02/08/2018.

7. Learned counsel for the RPSC has further submitted that in the writ petition, titled as Shailender Singh vs. State (SBCWP No. 14890/2019, the High Court dismissed the writ petition where a similar prayer for declaring cut-off marks of respective category was made and the judgment has been upheld by the Division Bench vide its order dated 03/12/2019. Learned counsel also cited an order passed by the Apex Court in A.P. PSC vs. Baloji Badhabath (Civil Appeal No. 244/2009) (Para 22) and also the order passed in Nair Service Society vs. T. Beermashtan (2009) AIR SC (W) 2638) (Para 25) and judgment of Kerala High Court in CR Ranjith vs. High Court of Kerala & Ors. (WP (C) No. 24737/2008 (R) (Para 23).

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, submitted that if category-wise result is not declared, there are possibilities of the candidates of general category having lesser merit being called for interview leaving aside the candidates of OBC having higher marks. Learned counsel further submitted that non-declaration of cut-off marks goes against the princip