As per case facts, petitioners, belonging to the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category, challenged the screening result declared by the RPSC for Veterinary Officer and Assistant Agriculture Officer posts. They ... alleged that despite securing comparatively higher marks, they were excluded from the interview shortlist, while lower-scoring general category candidates were included. The petitioners sought transparency in the shortlisting process, disclosure of cut-off marks, and application of a merit-based approach with due adjustment for reservation, arguing that the screening test carried a substantial weightage in the final merit. The question arose whether the RPSC's action of shortlisting candidates category-wise in a 1:3 ratio, excluding meritorious reserved category candidates while including less meritorious general category candidates without migration of reserved category candidates at the screening stage, was arbitrary or illegal and warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Finally, the High Court held that the screening test primarily served as a shortlisting mechanism, and the selection under the governing rules was essentially interview-based. The principle of migration of reserved category candidates to the unreserved category applies only at the stage of final selection, not at intermediate shortlisting stages. The category-wise shortlisting in a 1:3 ratio was deemed a reasonable and well-established practice, consistent with the reservation policy. The court found the petitioners' claims for migration at the screening stage misconceived and dismissed the writ petitions, also noting the doctrine of acquiescence as petitioners participated with full knowledge of the process.