[2025:RJ-JP:40418-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13897/2025 Saba Khan D/o Shri Hakim Ahmed Khan, Aged About 31 Years, Presently Residing At Flat No. 502, Radhey Villa Apartment, Powerhouse Road, Near Ram Mandir, Banipark, Jaipur-302006 Rajasthan (India), Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Rajasthan High Court, Through Its Registrar General, Jodhpur. 2. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shobit Tiwari For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishnu Kant Sharma HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 06/10/2025 1. Issue notice. 2. Mr. Vishnu Kant Sharma, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondents. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an OBC (Widow), having secured 69 marks in the screening test, while the cut-off marks for General (Widow) for participating in the main examination has been fixed as 46. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that OBC Category would be entitled to be treated as General Category, if he or she secures more marks than General Category candidate and the list of General Category should be prepared first in terms of “Saurav Yadav & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.” [2025:RJ-JP:40418-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-13897/2025] (Misc. Application No.2641 of 2019 in SLP (C) No.23223 of 2018 and Writ Petition (Civil) No.237 of 2020) decided on 18.12.2020. 5. While prima facie the view taken in “Sunita Meena vs. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Ors.” (2023(1) SLR 119), decided on 20.04.2022, reflects that rule of migration or considering the reserved category candidate from own category to general category would be allowed only at the main examination level and the same has been again reiterated in the case of “Gokala Ram vs. The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Ors.” (2024:RJJD:JJD). 6. One of us (Mr. Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.), while sitting at Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in the cases of “Haryana Public Service Commission vs. Pramila & Anr.” (LPA No.329 of 2024) & “Sanjay Saini & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors.” (CWP No.17188 of 2024), decided on 09.04.2025, has taken a different view, holding that the first list for the preparation of candidates who would be eligible for the main examination has to be that of the General list and all the candidates having inter se merit would be prepared accordingly and, therefore, the list of SC, ST and OBC would be prepared. The said judgment was challenged in the Supreme Court and by an interim order, the Supreme Court has stayed the view taken by one of us (supra) while issuing notices on 26.08.2025 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).43350/2025. 7. In view of the law as consistently held by this Court in the case of Sunita Meena (supra) and Gokala Ram (supra), wherein the Court held as under : [2025:RJ-JP:40418-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-13897/2025] “8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sunita Meena (Supra), while relying upon the decisions of this Court in various other matters, held as under: “32. Dealing with the similar challenge of claim of applicability of rule of migration in the matter of preparation of list of candidates for being admitted to main examination, relying upon the decision in the case of Chattar Singh (supra), Megha Sharma (supra), Dharamveer Tholia (supra) as also Garima Sharma (supra), the legal position has been re-affirmed in Kushi Ram Gurjar (supra) as below: “Considering the view expounded by Division Benches of this Court in the above cases while placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Chattar Singh (supra), it is clear that the concept of vertical reservation and migration to the higher category cannot be applied in a shortlisting exercise which is provided under Rule 25 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts (Driver and Class IV Employees) Service Rules, 2017........” 33. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Khushi Ram Gurjar (supra) noticed that the judgment of this Court in the caseof Hanuman Jat (supra) has been challenged in the Supreme Court but the argument that the judgment of the High Court has been stayed by the Supreme Court was not accepted taking into consideration that an interim arrangement was made by the Supreme Court. 34. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Saurav Yadav (supra) has now settled the controversy with regard to principles applicable in the matter of vertical and horizontal migration while preparing merit list, that being a case specific to claim of OBC (female) securing higher marks than the last candidate appointed in general category of general (female). In the light of consistent view by this Court in series of decisions cited hereinabove, the rule of migration of reserved category candidate from his/her own category to general category to be placed in the merit list would be applicable while preparing final merit list and not when the exercise of shortlisting of candidates category wise is done at the stage of screening by way of Preliminary Examinations, as has been done in the present case. Issue whether the principle of migration would apply even at the stage of shortlisting the candidates for being admitted to main examination was neither raised nor decided in the case of Saurav Yadav (supra). Learned counsel for the petitioner could not bring to our notice any authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in this regard. Therefore, we have no reason to take a different view than what has been taken in the cases of Dharamveer [2025:RJ-JP:40418-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-13897/2025] Tholia (supra), Hanuman Jat (supra), Megha Sharma (supra), Khushi Ram Gurjar (supra) and Garima Sharma (supra) which are the judgments rendered by taking into consideration the scheme of examination and governing rules of recruitment analogous to those applicable in the case in hand. 35. Resultantly, the petition being sans substratum is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed.” 9. It is now a well settled position in law that rule of migration under the Rules of 2010 will not have any applicability while preparation of select list at the stage of screening through Preliminary Examination. The rule of migration will only become applicable at the time of preparation of final merit list based on marks obtained by the candidates in written examination and interview. We may also add here that the Rules of 2010 and the advertisement dated 09th April 2024 both provide for preparation of a select/merit list after Preliminary Examination category-wise. The petitioners did not challenge the same before participating in the Preliminary Examination. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Rekha Sharma v. The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr.”: Civil Appeal No.5051/2023 decided on 21st August 2024 held that the candidates after they having found that their names do not appear in the list of successful candidates of Preliminary Examination, could not have questioned the result on the ground that the respondents had not declared the cut-off marks for their categories. 10. In that view of the matter, we do not find any illegality, perversity or infirmity in the action of the respondents in denying migration to the petitioner in the Ex-Serviceman- General category at the stage of Preliminary Examination itself. Both the writ petitions are dismissed accordingly.” 8. In view thereto, we are unable to accede to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. 10. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA), ACTING CJ AMIT/43