Hon'ble BHANSALI, J.—These intra court appeals by the respective appellants arise out of similar nature orders dated 9.10.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge and involving similar nature issues have been considered together and are taken up for disposal by this common judgment.

2. For convenience sake, facts from D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 170/2013 (Smt. Megha Shetty vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) are taken into consideration.

3. The State Government issued an advertisement for filling up the posts of Teacher Gr. III through Direct Recruitment Examination, 2012, Level-II at District Level; the petition submitted her application from the subject 'English'; appeared in the examination and obtained 135.75 marks and was placed in the merit list at S.No. 184.

4. As per the advertisement, the available posts in the subject English, in so far as relevant for the present appeal, are indicated as under:-

Total General- 42

Reserved for Woman : General 13

Widow 4

Divorcee 1

OBC General 18

Reserved for Woman : General 5

Widow 2

Divorcee 0

(In the same manner, posts were provided for Special Backward Class, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes).

5. A cut off list was issued on 28.8.2012 by the respondents, whereby the `cut off marks' for subject English, in so far as relevant to the present appeal, was indicated as under:-

General 136.95

Reserved for Woman 136.95

Reserved for Widow 70.45

Reserved for Divorcee 81.59

OBC General 133.13

Reserved for Woman 132.83

Reserved for Widow N/A

Reserved for Divorcee 117.82

6. The result declared on 7.9.2009 in terms of the advertisement indicated that for the General Category, out of 42 posts, 4 were occupied by Woman and as 13 seats were available for being allotted as per the horizontal reservation provided for Woman (General) and 4 Women candidates got selected on their own merit, 9 more Women candidates were selected against the General Woman category so as to make the total number of 13. However, as no woman in the category of widow and divorcee was available, the same were filled from the candidates of other categories. while thus filling 13 posts of General (Woman) category, 8 Women belonging to OBC were selected based on merit while filling the reserved posts for Woman (General) on horizontal basis, which is the bone of contention in the present writ petition.

7. It is claimed that the same could not have been done because as per the roster system, the OBC (Woman) candidate can be appointed in General Category but they cannot be appointed as against `General (Woman) Quota'. The petitioner submitted a representation to the CEO on 13.9.2012 but no action was taken.

8. The sum and substance of the grievance raised by the petitioner-appellant in the petition has been that as there were 13 posts for General (Woman), OBC (Woman) candidates could not have been selected against the posts reserved for General (Woman).

9. When the writ petition came up before the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge by order dated 9.10.2012 held as under:-

"After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, in my opinion, the crux of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no candidate of reserved category, even if she is more meritorious than General (Woman) category candidate, can be appointed on the post of General (Woman) category. The candidates belonging to OBC/SC/ST category can be appointed against vacancies of that respective category only and they cannot be considered against the post of General category.

The above argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is totally contrary to the adjudication made by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1993 SC 477, so also, in contravention of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Sabbarwal & Others vs. State of Punjab, reported in (1995) 2 SCC 745, in which, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that object of reservation is to provide adequate representatio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document