[2025:RJ-JP:28145-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 581/2025 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.347/2025 1. Dharmandra Singh Sheshma S/o Shri Bhadur Singh Sheshma, Age About 29 Years, R/o- Budh Singh Ki Dhani, HOD VIA Khandela, Sikar, Rajasthan-332709 2. Tulsi Ram Meena S/o Shri Ram Bharos Meena, Age About 27 Years, R/o- VPO -Kodyai, Teshil-Bonli, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan-322030 3. Sandeep Kumar S/o Shri Moolchand, Age About 32 Years, R/o- Jaisinghpura, Badawasi, Nawalgarh, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan-333042 4. Anoop Kumar S/o Shri Banwari Lal, Age About 32 Years, R/o- Plot No. 35, Residency Campus, Udaipur Rajasthan- 313001 5. Dharmesh Kumawat S/o Shri Banshi Lal Kumawat, Age About 27 Years, R/o- 02 Dagliyo Ki Magri, Near Shiv Temple, Bhuwana, Udaipur, Rajasthan-313001 6. Ram Gopal Kumawat S/o Shri Ratan Lal Kumawat, Aged About 27 Years, R/o- Baragaon, Baragaon, Udaipurwati, Jhunjhunu Rajasthan-333021 7. Shri Gopal S/o Shri Kundan Mal Pareek, Age About 26 Years, R/o- Gogasar, Ratanghar, Churu, Rajasthan- 331504 8. Naresh Kumar S/o Shri Vinod Kumar, Age About 27 Years, R/o- Ward No. 5, Gilwala, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan- 335526 9. Kailash Chand Yadav S/o Shri Chouth Mal Yadav, Age About 32 Years, R/o- Bhuranpura Nesti PO Lakher TH Amer, Jaipur Rajasthan-303104 10. Rajesh Nitharwal S/o Shri Kesar Nitharwal, Age About 30 Years, R/o- Jaipura, Kadera, Chaksu, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 303901 11. Nitish Vijay S/o Shri Ramesh Vijay, Age About 33 Years, R/o- 26 Mahaveer Nagar, Ranjke Wale Baba Ke Pass, Tonk, Rajasthan-304001 [2025:RJ-JP:28145-DB] (2 of 18) [SAW-581/2025] 12. Kuldeep Poonia S/o Shri Ramswaroop Poonia, Age About 28 Years, R/o-Village Himmatpura, Post- Devgaon Nua, District-Jhunjhunu-Rajasthan-333707 13. Hemant Kumar Agarwal S/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Agarwal, Age About 30 Years, R/o- 5-KA-Housng Board, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur, Near Jhulelal Temple, Jaipur, State- Rajasthan-302016 ----Appellants Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Finance Secretary, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Department Of Treasuries And Accounts, Through Director, Jyothi Nagar, Lal Kothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents 4. Nishant Upadhyay S/o Shri Yogesh Kumar, Age About 26 Years, R/o-Chandpole Gate Ke Pass, Namak Katra, Bharatpur, Rajasthan-321001 5. Hitesh Pathak S/o Shri Narayan Lal Pathak, Age About 30 Years, R/o- Vill-Bahadurpur, Post-Jatnangla, Hindaun City, Karauli, Rajasthan- 322236 6. Zakir Hussain S/o Shri Nafi Mohammad, Age About 30 Years, R/o- Cheepo Ka Bas, Salawas, Jodhpur, Rajasthan- 342013 7. Sunil Tiwari S/o Shri Chandra Prakash Tiwari, Age About 30 Years, R/o- Pareeko Ka Mohalla, Kalwar, Jaipur, Raajasthan-303706 8. Bharat Singh Mali S/o Shri Chhotu Singh Mali, Age About 31 Years, R/o- Mali Mohala, Saradhana, Ajmer, Rajasthan- 305206 9. Bhupender Singh S/o Shri Gurmel Singh, Age About 34 Years, R/o- V.15 RB PO 71 RB, Raisinghnagar, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan-335051 10. Sitaram Sahu S/o Shri Amararam Sahu, Aged About 29 Years, R/o- VPO-Kuntasar, Sri Dungargarh, Bikaner, [2025:RJ-JP:28145-DB] (3 of 18) [SAW-581/2025] Rajasthan-331803 11. Gopal Singh S/o Shri Birma Ram Manda, Age About 32 Years, R/o- Kokpura, Arakasar, Kuchaman, Nawa, Nagaur Rajasthan-341519 12. Ankit Katewa S/o Shri Ramesh Chand, Age About 34 Years, R/o- VPO Bakhtawarpura, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan- 333023 13. Sachin Mahiya S/o Shri Rajveer, Age About 31 Years, R/o- Ward No.14, Chak 4MD, Meharwala, Hanumangarh Rajasthan-335526 14. Banwari Lal S/o Shri Ramkumar, R/o- Merta City Tehsil- Merta City, District Nagaur, State-Rajasthan, Pincode- 341510 15. Mohit Yadav S/o Shri Ramswaroop Yadav, Age About 25 Years, R/o- Kundanpura, Pahadiya, Phagi, Jaipur, Rajasthan-303904 16. Mahendra Khichar S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Khichar, Age About 26 Years, R/o- VPO-Jodpura, Chandpura, Kuchaman City, Nagaur, Rajasthan-341508 17. Gopal Puri Goswami S/o Shri Kailash Puri Goswami, Age About 37 Years, R/o- Khayra, Badamahua, Bhilwara, Rajasthan-311401 18. Hitesh Meena S/o Shri Samandar, Age About 24 Years, R/o- VPO-Salempur Khurd, Bhusawar, Bharatpur Rajasthan-321407 19. Gajendra Kumar Meena S/o Shri Ram Khiladi Meena, Age About 25 Years, R/o-Aam Ka Jhahara, Nadauti, Karauli, Rajasthan-322213 20. Devendra Kumar Bhojak S/o Shri Hanut Mal Bhojak, Age About 30 Years, R/o- Ward No. 08, Manju Mata Mandir Ka Pass, Sardarshahar, Churu, Rajasthan-331403 21. Kapil Kumar S/o Shri Rajeer, Age About 27 Years, R/o- Nawan, Rajgarh, Churu, Rajasthan-331301 22. Mukesh Nath S/o Shri Rameshwar Nath, Age About 27 Years, R/o- Katariyasar, Bikaner, Rajasthan-334022 23. Mohan Lal S/o Shri Dhanna Ram, Age About 29 Years, R/o- Vayad Tec-Rohat, Pali Rajasthan-306421 24. Anurag Agarwal S/o Shri Murari Lal Agarwal, Age About [2025:RJ-JP:28145-DB] (4 of 18) [SAW-581/2025] 31 Years, R/o- 162 Ganesh Nagar 8, Niwaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur Rajasthan-302012 25. Manish Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Shashikant Sharma, Age About 31 Years, R/o- 20/A Kaushal Nagar, Bandikui, Dausa Rajasthan-303313 26. Mahesh Kumar Swami S/o Shri Chhotu Ram Swami, Age About 31 Years, R/o- 21-A, Gulab Vihar, Sirsi Road, Panchyawala, Jaipur Rajasthan-302034 27. Yogesh Acharya S/o Shri Manak Chandhanut Mal, R/o- Pragya Kunj Near Gyatri Temple, Merta City, District- Nagaur, State Rajasthan-341510 28. Bajrang Jakhar S/o Shri Sugana Ram Jakhar, Age About 30 Years, R/o- Balesh Ka Tiba, Roopangarh, Ajmer Rajasthan-305814. 29. Ramcharan Dholiya S/o Shri Shankar Ram, Age About 32 Years, R/o- 273, Jaton Ka Bas, Ghantiya, Nagaur Rajasthan-341510 30. Akash Bhardwaj S/o Shri Jagdish Bhardwaj, Age About 29 Years, R/o-5/346, Behind Khadi Bhandar, Shiv Colony, Karauli, Hindaun City, Rajasthan-322230 31. Pushpendra Kumar S/o Shri Mohar Singh, Age About 28 Years, R/o- Village- Dusraheda, Post-Barodameo, Tehsil- Laxmangarh, Alwar Rajasthan-301021 32. Ravi Saini S/o Shri Hariom Prakash, Age About 35 Years, R/o-42, Krishna Colony, Near Ambedkar Circle, Opposite Jhalani Hospital, Alwar, Rajasthan-301001 33. Amar Chand Meena S/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad Meena, Age About 30 Years, R/o- Ward No. 13 Behind Of Fort Danta Ramgarh, District- Sikar, Rajasthan-332703 Rajasthan- ----Non-Applicants/Proforma Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ajatshatru Mina, Mr. Movil Jeenwal and Mr. Himanshu Kala [2025:RJ-JP:28145-DB] (5 of 18) [SAW-581/2025] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI Judgment Reserved on: 24.07.2025 Pronounced On: 12.08.2025 REPORTABLE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,J. 1. By way of this special appeal (writ), the appellants assailed the order dated 05.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby, he has decided the bunch of writ petitions and dismissed the writ petitions rejecting the contentions raised by the petitioners. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the principle relating to reservation and the provisions contained under the Rules which were to be made applicable to a candidate who had applied under the Ministerial Employees (for short, "ME") Quota. He submits that as per the Rules, the Ministerial Employee Category is a separate category from SC, ST, OBC and MBC. The respondents had participated in selection process solely on the basis of being employees working in the Government Departments and had cleared the Common Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred as "CET") examination under the ME category and being successful in CET examination, participated in the main examinations as ministerial employee category candidates and were required to be placed in the merit of ME category alone. However, despite having not cleared the ME category cut off in the main examinations, they [2025:RJ-JP:28145-DB] (6 of 18) [SAW-581/2025] have been placed in various other categories, viz. SC/ST/OBC/MBC, to which they belong resulting in their being allowed to participate and come within the selection range. He submits that as per the Rajasthan Subordinate Accounts Service Rules, 1963 (for brevity, "Rules of 1963") and as per conditions of the advertisement, the candidates who had applied against the concerned reserved category could only be considered against the said reserved category and could not have been allowed to migrate. 3. We noticed that appellants themselves are also working in Government Departments and had applied under the ME category, they also cleared the CET examination and appeared in the main examination held on 11.02.2024, but could not be successful as they secured less marks than the cut off under the ME category. On the other hand, they have also raised a ground relating to other similarly situated candidates who participated along with them and at the time of main examination, have been allowed to be treated as SC, ST, OBC and MBC and included in the final result of those categories, although they could not secure the cut off marks in the category of ME. It is to be noticed that the cut off in ME category in main examination was 519.12 while the cut off for SC, ST, OBC and MBC category was much less. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has invited our attention to Proviso to Rule 6 of Rules of 1963. As per Rule 6(iii) of the Rules of 1963, 12.5% of the posts are meant to be filled from ME category candidates. He submits that there is no provision for migration to other categories under the said reservation quota and the same, therefore, would remain intake. While assailing the [2025:RJ-JP:28145-DB] (7 of 18) [SAW-581/2025] order of the learned Single Judge, the learned counsel submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that the dual benefit could not have been awarded to the candidates who first come in horizontal reservation under the ME category at the CET stage and then shifted to vertical categories of SC/ST/OBC/MBC categories to which they belong at the later stage of main examination. He submits that the candidates who would have, otherwise, filled the posts have been subjected to unfair discrimination. 5. We have considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. 6. The issue with regard to filling up the posts and the manner of providing reservation to the post has been subject matter of protracted litigation in almost all courses with a continuous process in Rajasthan since long. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of R.K Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, 1995(2) SCC 745, held that firstly, the candidates who are more meritorious will have to be considered in general category even if they belong to SC/ST/OBC/MBC category and they cannot be denied consideration for appointment under the general category. It also laid down for the first time that percentage of reservation and number of seats available for reservation has to be determined each year and upon a post having been filled from the reserved category under hundred point roster system, further reservation would close. There has been a consistent view taken by the High Court of Rajasthan right from Dharamveer Tholia VS. State of Rajasthan, 2000 (3) WLC 399, and in State of Rajasthan Vs. Hanuman Jat, 2017 (1) [2025:RJ-JP:28145-DB] (8 of 18) [SAW-581/2025] RLW 525, and then again in Sunita Meena Vs. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur through its Registrar General & Ors., 2023 (1) SLR 119. 7. However, a different view has been taken by the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Dalbir Singh, AIR 2009 SC 2438, wherein it was held as under: "10) From the pleadings, it appears to us, that the appellants had prepared two sets of lists. The first one being the list of those candidates who had staked their claim in the general merit and the second list contains those candidates who had opted for consideration of their case under OBC category. The respondent at no point of time had taken exception to the procedure adopted by the appellants in preparing the select list. In our opinion, having opted to consider his case only under OBC category, he cannot thereafter claim that his case requires to be considered in the general merit, only because, he has scored better percentage of marks than the last selected candidate in the general merit. In our considered view, the Administrative Tribunal having found that the appellants were justified in not considering the respondent's case for appointment under OBC category, ought not to have directed the appellants to consider his claim under general category. " 8. The Supreme Court in Chattar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 303, held as under: "16) As regards the preparation of separate list of General, OBCs, SCs, STs and physically handicapped, in view of the fact that the Latest [2025:RJ-JP:28145-DB] (9 of 18) [SAW-581/2025] amendment has been made explicit what was implicit in Rule 13, we are of the view that separate lists are required to be published by the Service Commission in respect of the candidates in the respective categories so as to make up number of candidates 15 times the notified or anticipated posts/vacancies so as to enable them to appear in the main examination. It is true that the amendment is prospective in operation. However, it does not detract from the efficiency of Rule 13 originally made. In view of the above, the Public Service Commission is directed to call all those candidates that constitute 15 times the posts/vacancies notified or anticipated in terms of the above declaration of law so as to enable them to appear in the main examination. " 9. The DOP circular dated 24.06.2008 has been noticed by the learned Single Judge and for preparation of merit list in direct recruitment, following direction and criteria has been laid down: "20. Preparation of merit list in direct recruitment 20.1 We now come to the question of how to select candidates so that all the categories get the number of posts reserved for them. Separate lists of candidates in the order of their merit should be made for each category for which there is reservation- SC, ST, OBC, OC Women, SC Women, ST Women, OBC Women, PD, ES, NG and SP- as well a common list. In the first round, first of all, the OC category candidates as are the number of vacancies in the OC category should be selected. Any member of the SC/ST/OBC category, appearing in this list should be counted towards OC category unless he has taken some concession admissible to of SC, ST these categories other than [2025:RJ-JP:28145-DB] (10 of 18) [SAW-581/2025] concession in fees. Thereafter list of SC ST and OBC candidates should be prepared from the remaining candidates in the lists and OBC categories respectively. 20.2 In the second round, it should be ensured that women get adequate vacancies. If the number of SC women is less than the number of vacancies reserved for them, the shortfall should be made up by selecting SC women from amongst the remaining SC women in the SC women list, in order of merit, and deleting an equal number of males from the selected list of SC category candidates in reverse order of their merit. Similar exercise should be done for the ST, OBC and then the open competition lists. 20.3 Reservation for the persons with disabilities, ex-servicemen, non-gazetted employees and sports persons is also horizontal and should be then ensured. Thus, from amongst these four lists, the shortfall, if any, of persons with disabilities, ex- servicemen, non-gazetted employees and sports persons should be calculated. In the third round, this shortfall should be made up by selecting sufficient number of persons from the lists of these categories, in order of merit, so as to fulfill the shortfall. For each person so selected one person (the least meritorious) of same category as the person selected should be removed from the list of that category made in the second round. If there is no shortfall in any of these categories viz persons with disabilities ex-servicemen, non-gazetted employees and sports persons, there is no need to make any extra selection." 10. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is based on a clear misconception. So far as CET Rules, 2022 are [2025:RJ-JP:28145-DB] (11 of 18) [SAW-581/2025] concerned, they are meant for the purpose of qualifying the common eligibility test which is a pre-qualification examination for participating in the main selection process. Thus, a candidate who clears the common eligibility test based on being from a particular quota like the appellants and respondents who are from Ministerial Employees quota, would only clear eligibility criterion. For the said purpose, in terms of Rule 6 of the CET Rules, 2022, relaxation in the qualifying marks has been provided. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that such relaxation is intended to ensure adequate participation in the main examination to candidates belonging to ministerial employees category. In our opinion, the said participation in the main examination would have nothing to do while preparing merit of the main examination. At the level of the main examination, a candidate’s score will have to be judged and his placement would be done strictly in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'be Supreme Court in Saurav Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2021 (4) SCC 542, wherein following law has been laid down: "35. The observations in paragraph 18 in Anil Kumar Gupta contemplated a situation where if “special reservation candidates” entitled to horizontal reservation are to be adjusted in a vertical column meant for “social reservation”, the corresponding number of candidates from such “social reservation category” ought to be deleted. It did not postulate that at the stage of making “special or horizontal reservation” a candidate belonging to any of the “social reservation categories” cannot be considered in Open/General Category. It is true that if the consideration for [2025:RJ-JP:28145-DB] (12 of 18) [SAW-581/2025] accommodation at horizontal reservation stage is only with regard to the concerned vertical reservation or social reservation category, the candidates belonging to that category alone must be considered. For example, if horizontal reservation is to be applied with regard to any of the categories of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes, only those candidates answering that description alone can be considered at the stage of horizontal reservation. But it is completely different thing to say that if at the stage of horizontal reservation, accommodation is to be considered against Open/General seats, the candidates coming from any of the reserved categories who are more meritorious must be side- lined. That was never the intent of the observations sought to be relied upon in support of the second view. 36. Similarly, the observations in Rajesh Kumar Daria were in the context of emphasizing a distinguishing feature between vertical and horizontal reservations; in that:- (a) At the stage of vertical reservation, the reserved category candidates selected in Open/General category are not to be counted while filling up seats earmarked for the corresponding reserved categories. (b) But the same principle of not counting the concerned selected candidates is not to apply for horizontal reservation. Adopting principle (a) at the stage of horizontal reservation, the respondents in Rajesh Kumar Daria had separately allocated 11 seats for women in General Category as part of special or horizontal reservation, though another set of 11 women candidates had got selected, according to their own [2025:RJ-JP:28145-DB] (13 of 18) [SAW-581/2025] merit, in General Category quota. The quota of 11 seats for women having been already satisfied, this Court negated the theory that their number be disregarded while making horizontal reservation for women. It was in that context that the distinction between vertical and horizontal reservations was highlighted by this Court in paragraph 9 of the decision. The subsequent sentence “thus women selected on merit within the vertical reservation quota will be counted against the horizontal reservation for women” in the very same paragraph and the illustration given thereafter are absolutely clear on the point. ************* ************* 58. This rule was affirmed and applied in Anil Kumar Gupta v State of UP and Swati Gupta v State of UP and Jitendra Kumar Singh v State of UP and Rajesh Kumar Daria v Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The manner of filling the horizontal reservation category and the vertical, social categories, was explained in Rajesh Kumar Daria in the following terms: “9. Social reservations in favour of SC, ST and OBC under Article 16 (4) are 'vertical reservations''. Special reservations in favour of physically handicapped, women etc., under Articles 16(1) or 15(3) are 'horizontal reservations'. Where a vertical reservation is made in favour of a backward class under Article 16 (4), the candidates belonging to such backward class, may compete for non-reserved posts and if they are appointed to the non-reserved posts on their own merit, their numbers will not be counted against the quota reserved for the respective backward class. [2025:RJ-JP:28145-DB] (14 of 18) [SAW-581/2025] Therefore, if the number of SC candidates, who by their own merit, get selected to open competition vacancies, equals or even exceeds the percentage of posts reserved for SC candidates, it cannot be said the reservation quota for SCs has been filled. The entire reservation quota will be intact and available in addition to those selected under Open Competition category. [Vide Indira Sawhney, R. K. Sabharwal vs. State of Punjab, Union of India v Virpal Singh Chauvan and Ritesh R. Shah v Dr. Y.L Yamul. But the aforesaid principle applicable to vertical (social) reservations will not apply to horizontal (special) reservations. Where a special reservation for women is provided within the social reservation for Scheduled Castes, the proper procedure is first to fill up the quota for scheduled castes in order of merit and then find out the number of candidates among them who belong to the special reservation group of 'Scheduled Castes- Women'. If the number of women in such list is equal to or more than the number of special reservation quota, then there is no need for further selection towards the special reservation quota. Only if there is any shortfall, the requisite number of scheduled caste women shall have to be taken by deleting the corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of the list relating to Scheduled Castes. To this extent, horizontal (special) reservation differs from vertical (social) reservation. Thus women selected on merit within the vertical reservation quota will be counted against the horizontal reservation for women." 11. In a concurrent judgment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat in Saurav Yadav (supra) it was held as under: [2025:RJ-JP:28145-DB] (15 of 18) [SAW-581/2025] "11. The open category is not a ‘quota’, but rather available to all women and men alike. Similarly, as held in Rajesh Kumar Daria, there is no quota for men. If we are to accept the second view. [as held by the Allahabad High Court in Ajay Kumar v. State of UP and the Madhya Pradesh High Court in State of M.P. v. Uday Sisode, referred to in paras 24 and 25 of Lalit, J.’s judgment], the result would be confining the number of women candidates, irrespective of their performance, in their social reservation categories and therefor, destructive of logic and merit. The second view, therefore- perhaps unconsciously supports- but definitely results in confining the number of women in the select list to the overall numerical quota assured by the rule." 12. Again in Sadhana Singh Dangi Vs. Pinki Asati, 2022 (12) SCC 401, the judgment passed in Saurav Yadav (supra) was reiterated and it has been held as under: "13. This Court thus considered two views, one which was taken by the High Courts of Rajasthan, Bombay, Gujarat and Uttarakhand; and, the second, which had weighed with the High Courts of Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh. After considering the totality of the circumstances as well as the rival submissions, the view taken by the High Courts of Rajasthan, Bombay, Gujarat and Uttarakhand was accepted to be the correct view and the one which was taken by the High Courts of Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh was not approved. 14. The decision of this Court in Sourav Yadav had considered all the cases on the point starting [2025:RJ-JP:28145-DB] (16 of 18) [SAW-581/2025] from Indra Sawhney up to Mamta Bisht as well as other decisions. It was finally concluded that the candidates belonging to the category of OBC (Female) of any other reserved category (Female) were entitled as a matter of right to have their candidature considered against the category meant for Unreserved Female Candidates if their merit position demanded so. It was further held that the category of Unreserved (Female) if not a specially allocated or reserved for those candidates who did not belong to any of the categories of SC, ST or OBCs and that by very nature "unreserved category" must mean and include every person who on the strength of merit could be entitled to be considered in that category. ************** ************** 23. The law laid down in Saurav Yadav is very clear that even while applying horizontal reservation, the merit must be given precedence and that if the candidates who belong to SCs, STs and OBCs have secured higher marks or are more meritorious, they must be considered against the seats meant for unreserved candidates. 24. The observations made by the High Court in the instant case, in our view, do not lay down the correct law. The High Court failed to appreciate that conceptually there would be no distinction between vertical and horizontal reservations, when it comes to the basic idea that even the candidates belonging to reserved categories can as well stake a claim to seats in unreserved categories if their merit position entitled them to do so." [2025:RJ-JP:28145-DB] (17 of 18) [SAW-581/2025] 13. Again the Supreme Court in recent judgment of Ramnaresh @ Rinku Kushwah and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 2024 INSC 611, held as under: "16. In view of the settled position of law as laid down by this Court in the case of Saurav Yadav (supra) and reiterated in the case of Sadhana Singh Dangi (supra), the methodology adopted by the respondents in compartmentalizing the different categories in the horizontal reservation and restricting the migration of the meritorious reserved category candidates to the unreserved seats is totally unsustainable. In view of the law laid down by this Court, the meritorious candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC, who on their own merit, were entitled to be selected against the UR-GS quota, have been denied the seats against the open seats in the GS quota. 17. It is to be noted that, in the present case, the cut-off for UR candidates was much less as compared to the cut-off for SC/ST/OBC/EWS candidates. As such, the respondents ought to have admitted the present appellants against the UR-GS categories. It is further to be noted that many seats from UR-GS category were required to be transferred to the General category " 14. Thus, we are of the firm view that the view taken by the learned Single Judge in allowing the candidates who have applied for the main examination and who cleared the ME Quota qualifying examination in CET would be entitled to be considered as per their merit and category, is just and proper. Thus, if they score marks to fall within the open category, they would be placed in the [2025:RJ-JP:28145-DB] (18 of 18) [SAW-581/2025] first list (Slot-I) even if they belong to any of the reserved category. Thereafter the merit would be prepared of SC, ST, OBC and MBC candidates and the candidates according to their category and merit would be placed. A separate category of ministerial employees would thereafter be also prepared. However, it was not mean that the candidates who have applied under ME category cannot claim appointment against open category even if they have secured higher merit. The present special appeal, therefore, fails. The judgment passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the appeal is hereby dismissed. 16. All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. 17. No costs. (CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J Govind/Gaurav/189-s