As per case facts, the Haryana Staff Selection Commission conducted a Common Eligibility Test for Group-C and Group-D posts, with a socio-economic criteria weightage. Merit lists were challenged for improperly ... granting these bonus marks to ineligible candidates, leading to court directions for re-verification and fresh merit lists. A subsequent High Court judgment quashed the socio-economic criteria and all CET results, directing a fresh selection process, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. Aggrieved selected candidates filed review applications, contending their selections for 24 specific groups were valid, made on merit without socio-economic marks, and set aside without being heard or on an erroneous factual premise. The question arose whether the blanket quashing of selections for all groups, including the 24 groups where successful candidates did not avail socio-economic criteria marks and where eligible candidates were fewer than the prescribed ratio, was justified. Finally, the Court found a clear factual distinction between the problematic groups (56-57) and the 24 other groups. For these 24 groups, where candidate numbers were low, and selected individuals demonstrably did not benefit from socio-economic marks, the previous judgment's premise for quashing was incorrect. Thus, the Court allowed the review applicants from these 24 groups to continue in service, finding no other illegality in their recruitment.