CW 3063/08 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH [1] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3063/08 Vijay Singh Maan Versus State & Anr. [2] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3062/08 Rajesh Kumar Gajraj Versus State & Anr. [3] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3188/08 Dharm Veer Versus RPSC [4] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2951/08 Ameelal Yadav & Ors. Versus RPSC [5] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3165/08 Ummed Singh Shekhawat & Ors. Versus State & Ors. [6] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3381/08 Pawan Kumar Karwasara Versus State & Anr. [7] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3243/08 Dharam Pal Singh Versus RPSC [8] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3313/08 Nathu Lal Yadav Versus RPSC & Anr. [9] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3358/08 Jai Bhagwan Versus State & Anr. [10] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3697/08 Ummaid Singh Versus State & Anr. [11] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3475/08 Sambhu Dayal Chakradhari & Ors. Versus State & Ors. [12] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4126/08 Mohar Pal Yadav Versus State & Anr. [13] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4694/08 Shishram Versus State & Anr. [14] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4636/08 Ranjeet Singh Poonia Versus State & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : 28/07/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Ashok Gaur ] Mr. S.P. Sharma ] Mr. Vikrant Gupta ] for petitioners Mr. Pradeep Kalwania ] Mr. Bharat Saini ] Mr. Samunder Singh ] Mr. S.N. Kumawat, for RPSC *** CW 3063/08 [2] Instant petitions have basically been filed with the grievance that under the advertisement Ann.1 dt.1st June, 2007 while holding RAS/RTS Preliminary Examination, 2007, petitioners who submitted their application against the vacancies reserved for ex-servicemen quota to the extent of 12½% of vacancies in terms of Rajasthan Civil Services [Absorption] of Ex-servicemen Rules, 1988 in the ratio of 1:15 a separate list has not been published by the respondents which according to them is required under R.15 of the Rules. Counsel further submits that respective categories have been specified by the respondents in their advertisement itself and the question of reservation will arise only after they appeared in the Main Examination followed with interview which ultimately make the final list of candidates who have participated in the process of selection. Counsel further submits that since the marks secured in Preliminary Examination are not taken note of for the purpose of determination of final merit, as such the question of applicability of reservation at the stage of Preliminary Examination does not arise and the category cannot be intermixed with the reservation and ex-servicemen being a separate category under the advertisement, the Commission was under an obligation to declare separate list of applicants who appeared against that quota in CW 3063/08 [3] the ratio of 1:15 and this issue has not been examined at the Main Seat at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.401/08 along with other connected appeals, Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Rameshwar Ram Chhaba [Ex-Sergeant] & Ors., decided on 21st July, 2008. Counsel for respondent, on the other hand, submits that the ultimate relief claimed by the petitioners has been decided at the Main Seat at Jodhpur holding that ex-service personnel are not entitled for their separate list to be published by the Commission in the ratio of 1:15 in terms of R.15 of the Rules. Learned Single Judge allowed the petitions vide judgment dated 19th April, 2008 - against which special appeal was preferred by Commission and the same has been set aside upholding the contentions of respondents that no separate list of ex-service personnel against the vacancies which are reserved in terms of R.15 of the Rules is required under law. It is true that some of the contentions have not been advanced and considered before Division Bench at the Main Seat at Jodhpur and other Counsel has raised certain issues in addition to what has been considered. But since the Division Bench has finally upheld the respondents' CW 3063/08 [4] contention and ultimate relief is the same, this court finds no substance to interfere in the light of Division Bench judgment [supra]. Consequently, in the light of Division Bench judgment [supra], all the writ petitions stand dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA3063CW2008 28-7-bunch.doc