F. I. REBELLO, J.

( 1 ) RULE. Heard forthwith.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has passed M. B. B. S. examination and also completed diploma in Public Health. Petitioner belongs to notified NT-C category. From the year 1990 upto the year 1994, the "dhanagar" caste came to be included in nt category and continues to be so. The NT category in the year 1994 came to be bifurcated as NT-A, NT-B, NT-C and NT-D. Insofar as petitioner is concerned, she falls in a category of NT-C which carries reservation of 3. 5%. The case of the petitioner is that on 100 pt. roster, there ought to be reservation of 3 to 4 posts out of 100. On 29-3-1997, the respondent-State passed a resolution providing for 100 pt. Roster system to be made applicable to direct recruitment and 50 pt. roster system for the purpose of promotions. The G. R. also provided that the backlog, if any, for direct appointments should be considered while implementing the said G. R.

( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that between the year 1994 to 1998, 97+3 posts of Deputy Collectors were notified. If 100 Pt. Roster system was applied then 3 posts should have been allotted to NT-C category. However, only two posts came to be allotted to NT-C category. Similarly the petitioner had applied for post of Tahsildar as also Sales Tax Officer. In the examination conducted, it is the case of the petitioners that she stood 5th in the merit list in NT-C category and first in the women category belonging to NT-C category and as such if the 100 point roster system is implemented as per Government Resolution dated 29th march, 1997, she was certainly entitled to one of the posts of Deputy Collector or tahsildar or Sales Tax Officer. On account of the incorrect and wrong implementation of the 100 point roster system, less number of posts came to be allotted to NT-C for the year 1998 and as such the petitioner was not getting the post of her choice for which she was entitled to.

( 4 ) CONSEQUENT whereupon, the petitioner filed Original Application No. 640 of 1999. The same came to be disposed of by the tribunal by order dated 29-9-2000. It appears that during the pendency of the petition, respondents by notification dated 17-8-2000 made appointments. These appointments were subject to the result of the application made by the petitioner. The tribunal recorded a finding that during the period of 1994 to 1998 at least one post should have been allotted to a women candidate in the post of Deputy Collector as also tahsildar and S. T. O. Class I. The tribunal further observed that in the event the respondent No. 2 M. P. S. C. finds that the applicant fits in, in any of the said posts of her preference in the examination in question, i. e. for the year 1998, then it should recommend her name and the respondent No. 1 shall take action accordingly. If however, the three posts as above in each of the said cadres are already filled, then she should be considered in the vacancy existing or arising, as the case may be, but without disturbing the appointments already made. The exercise be done as early as possible. In other words, though the tribunal found that the petitioner ought to be considered they chose not to interfere with the appointments already made. The tribunal instead directed that in case there was no vacancy, then petitioner should be considered against the vacancy which may arise. This was perhaps to balance the equities in the matter. This order has not been challenged by the respondent-State Government. As the respondent-State did not comply with the directions, petitioner filed Contempt Application No. 78 of 2001. An affidavit was filed by M. P. S. C. wherein it was set out that the case of the applicant has been considered in the examination held in 1998-99. They however, for the reasons set out in the reply could not accommodate applicant in any of the posts. The tribunal noted that in the circumstances, in spite of efforts made by the respondents to consider applicants case, it is no