Page No.# 1/18 GAHC010298532019 2025:GAU-AS:9103 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/9023/2019 HUSNA ARA BEGUM W/O- SHEIKH ABDULLAH, R/O- VILL- GHORAMARA, P.O- RAINADUBRI, DIST- KOKRAJHAR, BTAD, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (HIGHER) DEPTT, DISPUR, GHY- 06 2:THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI- 19 3:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY BTAD KOKRAJHAR P.O AND DIST- KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN- 783370 4:THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION BTAD KOKRAJHAR P.O AND DIST- KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN- 783370 5:THE PRINCIPAL I/C OF FAKIRGRAM COLLEGE P.O- FAKIRGRAM DIST- KOKRAJHAR Page No.# 2/18 BTAD ASSAM PIN- 78334 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U K NAIR, MR. M KHAN,MR J RAHMAN,MRS. K DEVI,MR R ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HIGHER EDU, MR K ISLAM (R-5),MS. N NASRIN (R-5),MD. I H KHAN (R-5),MR. M U MONDAL (R-5),SC, BTC BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 15.07.2025 Heard Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Das, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2; Mr. B. Choudhury, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4; and Mr. M.U. Mondal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the advertisement dated 26.11.2019, issued by the respondent No. 5, inviting application from eligible reserved category candidates for the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of English in Fakiragram College, Kokrajhar. 3. The background facts leading to filing of the present petition are adumbrated herein below:- “The petitioner, namely, Husna Ara Begum, was appointed on 23.10.2013 as Assistant Professor in the 4th post in the department of English. She joined on 05.11.2013 and since then, she has been working as Assistant Professor in the department of English in Page No.# 3/18 Fakiragram College in the district of Kokrajhar, BTAD. At the relevant point of time the College was in venture stage but it was in the process of provincialisation. Thereafter, the services of 13 teaching and non- teaching staffs of the college were provincialized w.e.f. 01.01.2013, vide order dated 20.01.2014, including the services of one Rustam Brahma, who was belonging to ST(P) category, as Assistant Professor in English, on the basis of existing staffs. Thereafter two more teaching staffs were provincilised. However, service provincialization benefit could not be effected in respect of Sri Rustam Brahma, as he had left the college before provincialization of his service. Therefore, the said post remained vacant and for filling up the said post of Assistant Professor in English department, the impugned advertisement was issued inviting application from ST(P) candidates. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that out of 15 existing teaching employees, 3 posts are being occupied by ST(P) candidates and if another post is reserved for ST(P) candidate then it will exceed the reserved quota, as per roster point laid down in the Office Memorandum dated 04.11.2013 (Annexure-7). Further contention of the petitioner is that the present post is being reserved for ST(P) candidate merely on the ground that the said post was provincialized in favour of ST(P) reserved candidate, namely, Shri Rustam Brahma. It is also the case of the petitioner that at the relevant point of time, no reservation policy was followed. Now the respondent authority, after formation of the cadre has to maintain the 100 point roster register and to make adjustment of the existing employees at par with roster points and if the percentage of reservation and the roster point is considered Page No.# 4/18 then the vacant post in English department of the said college cannot be reserved for the ST(P) candidates, and the same is beyond the reservation policy, and more so, the said post could not be deemed to have been reserved under ST(P) quota as 3 posts have already been occupied by the ST(P) candidates, and it ought to have been made open for general category and as such the impugned advertisement is illegal and arbitrary, and therefore, it is contended to set aside the same.” 4. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had filed their affidavit-in-opposition, and in the said affidavit they had taken the same stand, which is being taken by Mr. Choudhury, the learned standing counsel for them. Another stand taken by them is that the respondent No. 5, issued the impugned advertisement, after obtaining approval from the Office of the Director of Education, BTAD. 5. The respondent No. 4 has filed another affidavit-in-opposition taking the similar stand as earlier, and that there is no infirmity in the impugned advertisement, and it has been done as per provision of law and the same requires no interference of this Court. 6. The respondent No. 4 has filed an additional affidavit stating that the Fakiragram College teaching and non-teaching staffs were provincialized on 20.01.2014, as per provisions of Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialization of Services), Act 2011, as amended 2012, and since it was new formation of cadre, the reservation policy was not applicable at that stage, and that initially, 15 teaching posts were provincialized, but the incumbent at Serial No. 15 i.e. Sri Rustam Brahma, resigned as he had joined in another service. It is also stated that subsequently, against the sanctioned posts of 15 numbers, the Roster Register was prepared as per initial date of appointment of Page No.# 5/18 the existing incumbents, and the vacant post of Assistant Professor in the Department of English in Fakiragram College falls at roster point No. 15, which is earmarked as reserved category i.e. ST(P), and thereafter, on approval, the advertisement was issued. The respondent No.4 has also enclosed the Roster Register as on 01.01.2018, of the Fakiragram College as Annexure-I, and also one letter of the Director of Higher Education, Assam, dated 19.10.2022, is annexed as Annexure-II. 7. Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, namely, Husna Ara Begum, who has been working as Assistant Professor in the department of English in Fakiragram College in the district of Kokrajhar, BTAD, has challenged the advertisement dated 26.11.2019, (Annexure-6) published by the Principal (respondent No.5) of the said College for filling up the vacant post of Assistant Professor in English department. Mr. Khan also submits that the services of teaching and non-teaching staffs of the college were provincialized w.e.f. 01.01.2013, and at that relevant point of time, no reservation policy was followed. And the services of all together 15 teaching employees were provincialized, including the services of one Rustam Brahma, who was a candidate under ST(P) category, as Assistant Professor in English, on the basis of existing staffs. Mr. Khan also submits that however, service provincialization benefit could not be effected in respect of Sri Rustam Brahma, as he had left the college before provincialization of his service. Therefore, the said post remained vacant and for filling up the said post of Assistant Professor in English department, the impugned advertisement was issued inviting application from ST(P) candidates. 7.1. Mr. Khan further submits that out of 15 existing teaching employees, 3 posts are being occupied by ST(P) candidates and if another post is reserved for Page No.# 6/18 ST(P) candidate then it will exceed the reserved quota as per roster point laid down in the Office Memorandum dated 04.11.2013 (Annexure-7). Mr. Khan also submits that the present post is being reserved for ST(P) candidate merely on the ground that the said post was provincialized in favour of ST(P) reserved candidate, namely, Shri Rustam Brahma. Mr. Khan also submits that since at the time of provincialization of service of the teaching staffs, the reservation policy was not followed, now the respondent authority, after formation of the cadre has to maintain the 100 point roster register and to make adjustment of the existing employees at par with roster points and if the percentage of reservation and the roster point is considered then the vacant post in English department of the said college cannot be reserved for the ST(P) candidates. 7.2. Mr. Khan further submits that the respondent No. 5, without preparing roster points and adjusting the existing employees, has earmarked the post in question under ST(P) reserved quota, which is beyond the reservation policy, and more so, the said post could not be deemed to have been reserved under ST(P) quota as 3 posts have already been occupied by the ST(P) candidates, and it ought to have been made open for general category and as such, the impugned advertisement is illegal and arbitrary, and therefore, it is contended to set aside the same. 8. Per contra, Mr. 8. Per contra, Mr. Choudhury, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submits that the services of teaching and non-teaching staffs of the college were provincialized w.e.f. 01.01.2013, and as per Rule, no reservation policy was followed at that point of time, and the services of the teaching staffs were provincialized on the basis of the existing staffs. Mr. Choudhury also submits that on the basis of the aforementioned proposition, the services of 15 teaching employees were provincialized, and amongst the 15 Page No.# 7/18 employees the service of Sri Rustam Brahma was also provincialized against post of Assistant Professor in English, but he left the college before provincialization could be effected, and as the post of Assistant Professor in English department was being hold by Sri Rustam Brahma, who belongs to ST(P) category, the impugned advertisement has been issued for filling up the post of Assistant Professor in English by ST(P) candidates only and there is no illegality in the same warranting any interference of this Court. 9. Mr. Mondal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, though not filed any affidavit-in-opposition, but, he submits that the respondent No. 5 has obtained approval from the Director of Education, BTC, vide Annexure-B, at page No. 37 of the petition, and thereafter, published the impugned advertisement, which suffers from no infirmity. 10. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also perused the impugned advertisement dated 26.11.2019 (Annexure-6), which was published in the Assam Tribune. 11. It is not in dispute that Fakiragram College was provincialized, vide order dated 20.01.2014 (Annexure-3), w.e.f. 01.01.2013, and it appears from the aforementioned order that the services of all together 23 teaching and non- teaching staffs were provincialized, and in the said order, at Sl. No. 11, the name of Rustam Brahma appears and his service was provincialized as Assistant Professor in English Department and he belongs to ST(P) category. It also appears that thereafter, vide order dated 24th February, 2015 (Annexure-4) service of one Adit Chandra Deka in the department of Assamese was provincialised and vide order dated 20.06.2015 one Prabir Kumar Das, Assistant Page No.# 8/18 Professor in Economics department was provincialised with effect from 01.01.2013 and 26.02.2014 respectively. With this, total cadre strength of teaching staffs of Fakiragram College becomes 15. 12. It is also not in dispute that at the time of provincialisation of services of the teaching and non-teaching staffs of the Fakiragram College, the roaster points were not followed and all the services of all the existing teaching and non-teaching staffs were provincialised. 13. It also appears that 100 point model roster is adopted for giving effect to the reservation of vacancies for reserved categories including OBC and the roster shall be adopted for the purpose of direct recruitment only by each establishment for each cadre only. The relevant Office Memorandum, dated 04.11.2013 is being enclosed as Annexure-7 the petition. Perusal of the said Office memorandum indicates that out of 100 model roster points, Sl. No. 5 and Sl. 15 belong to ST (P) candidates. 14. Further, the respondent No.4 in its additional affidavit had enclosed the list of Man in Position as per Roster Register, as Annexure-I, which is reproduced herein below: “ ROSTER REGISTER OF FAKIRAGRAM COLLEGE, DIST, KOKRAJHAR, BTAD (As on 01.01.2018) NAME OF THE POST/CADRE: Asstt. Professor CADRE STRENGTH : 15 PERCENTAGE OF RESERVATION PRESCRIBED SC 7%, STP 10%, STH 5%, OBC-27% MAN IN POSITION : 14 VACANT: 1 Page No.# 9/18 PART-I MAN IN POSITION Entitlement in the Cadre OBC-27% = 4 Shortfall = Nil SC-7% = 1 Shortfall = Nil STP-10% = 2 Shortfall = Nil STH-5% = 1 Shortfall = 1” 15. It also appears from the affidavit-in-opposition of respondent No.4 that at SL. NO. NAME CATEGORY DESIGNATION DATE OF JOINING 1. Chan Miah Ahmed UR Asstt. Professor 12.12.1997 2. Sanowar Hussain UR Asstt. Professor 30.08.1999 3. Ranjit Kr. Das SC Asstt. Professor 28.10.2000 4. Manoranjan Roy OBC Asstt. Professor 30.10.2000 5. Adit Ch. Deka UR Asstt. Professor 03.11.2000 6. Prabir Kr. Das OBC Asstt. Professor 27.11.2000 7. Tarun Kr. Das UR Asstt. Professor 03.02.2004 8. Rajendra Prasad Roy OBC Asstt. Professor 03.02.2004 9. Manaj Kr. Brahma ST(P) Asstt. Professor 15.02.2005 10. Samaresh Nath OBC Asstt. Professor 28.11.2005 11. Anowarul Islam UR Asstt. Professor 28.11.2005 12. Jamuna Basumatary ST(P) Asstt. Professor 09.10.2006 13. Manik Narzary ST(P) Asstt. Professor 10.10.2006 14. Chhanda Saha Roy UR Asstt. Professor 01.11.2006 Page No.# 10/18 the stage of formation of new cadre, the reservation policy is not applicable. Further, it appears that in respect of the Fakiragram College, initially 15 posts were provincialized and the incumbent at Sl. No. 15 was Sri Rustam Brahma, who had resigned from the post as he joined in another service, and subsequently, the Roster Register was prepared for 15 numbers of posts as per initial data of appointment of the existing incumbents, and the post of Assistant Professor in Department of English in Fakiragram College falls on roster point No. 15, which is earmarked as reserved for ST(P) candidate. Annexure I, at page No. 45 of the additional affidavit provides Roster (draw up to 100 point), which is reproduced herein below: “ PART-II ROSTER (DRAWN UPTO 100 POINT) Roster Point No. Category for which the post should be earmarked Name of the person occupying the post Date of Appointment (Initial) Whether SC/STP/ST H/OBC/UR Remarks 1. UR Chan Miah Ahmed Asstt. Prof., History 06.12.1997 UR 2. OBC/MOBC Sanowar Hussain Asstt. Prof., Education 30.08.1999 UR Occupied by UR 3. UR Ranjit Kr. Das Asstt. Prof., Education 04.10.2000 SC Occupied by SC 4. UR Manoranjan Roy Asstt. Prof., English 04.10.2000 OBC Occupied by OBC 5. ST(P) Adit Ch. Deka Asstt. Prof., Assamese 04.10.2000 UR Occupied by UR Page No.# 11/18 6. OBC/MOBC Prabir Kr. Das Asstt. Prof., Economics 24.11.2000 SC Occupied by SC 7. UR Tarun Kr. Das Asstt. Prof., Economics 29.01.2004 UR 8. SC Rajendra Prasad Roy Asstt. Prof., English 29.01.2004 OBC Occupied by OBC 9. UR Manaj Kr. Brahma Asstt. Prof., Bodo 13.02.2005 ST(P) Occupied by ST(P) 10. ST(H) Samaresh Nath Asstt. Prof., Education 27.11.2005 OBC Occupied by OBC 11. OBC/MOBC Anowarul Islam Asstt. Prof., Pol. Sc. 27.11.2005 UR Occupied by UR 12. UR Jamuna Basumatary Asstt. Prof., Bodo 03.10.2006 ST(P) Occupied by ST(P) 13. OBC/MOBC Manik Narzary Asstt. Prof., Bodo 09.10.2006 ST(P) Occupied by ST(P) 14. UR Chhanda Saha Roy Asstt. Prof., Economics 26.10.2006 UR 15. ST(P) Vacant (Deptt. Of English) Resigned by Rustam Brahma” 16. From the afore-extracted table, it appears that the post at Sl. No. 15 falls in the category of ST (P) and the respondent No. 5, having obtained permission from the respondent No. 4, has published the impugned advertisement. 17. But, the fact remains that out of 15 post of teaching staffs of Fakiragram College, 3 post are being occupied by the ST(P) candidates, although as per the 100 point roster register only two post at Sl. No. 5 and 15 belongs to the said Page No.# 12/18 category. At present ST(P) candidates have been occupying more post than they are entitled to as per roster register. And if another post is reserved for ST(P) candidate then it will exceed the number and will be against the policy. Mr. Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed this out. According to Mr. Khan, the respondent authority, after initial formation of cadre has to maintain the 100 point roster register and to make adjustment of the existing employees at par with roster points and if the percentage of reservation and the roster point is considered then the vacant post in English department of the said college cannot be reserved for the ST(P) candidates. 18. There appears to be substance in the submission of Mr. Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner. As discussed above and as is apparent from the roster register maintained by the respondent authority i.e. Annexure I, at page No. 45 of the additional affidavit of respondent No.4, it is clear that out of 15 post three are being occupied by the ST(P) candidates. And if the post at Sl.No.15 of the roster register is reserved for the ST(P) candidate then it would exceeds the percentage of reservation for the ST(P) candidates and will be contrary of reservation policy. Though respondent No.4 had taken a stand that as per roster register, post at Sl.No.15 belongs to ST(P) candidate yet, said submission left this Court unimpressed. Though Mr. Choudhury has produced before this Court the Hand Book on Reservation of Post and maintenance of Roster, published by Assam Administrative College, Khanapara, Guwahati, especially to point No.10, Initial Preparation Roster Register yet, a careful perusal of the same would reveal that the same would not advance his argument. 18.1. It is to be noted here that point No.10 read as under:- 10. Initial preparation of Roster Register:- “At the point of initial operation of the roster, it will Page No.# 13/18 be necessary to ascertain that each roster point have been earmarked for each category vis. SC, ST(P), ST(H), OBC/MOBC, EWS and General in the roster. In order to prepare roster register initially, name of all the candidates holding the post as on the date of starting the reservation register, may be entered in the register starting with the earliest appointee who was in the cadre on the date of start of register. If an appointee in the cadre belongs to SC category, SC may be written in column 5 in the register against his name provided he was appointed by reservation. If that candidate was appointed on his own merit, UR will be written in column 6. If the next appointee is a general candidate, general may be written in column 5 in the register against his name and UR in column 6 and so on till all the appointments are adjusted in the respective rosters. After making entries as indicated above, details about the number of SC, ST and OBC candidates appointed by reservation, backlog reserved vacancies, if any, may be indicated in remarks column. The excess reservation of particular category in the cadre would be adjusted through future appointment and existing appointment would not be disturbed.” 18.2. But, the answer lies at point No. 12 of the said Hand Book, which read as under:- 12. Squeezing of Reserved Roster:- Once the prescribed percentage of reservation meant for SC, ST (P) and ST(H) in a particular cadre is achieved, no further reservation would lie irrespective of roster point. So, while preparing the roster register, if the number of reserved points exceeds the prescribed percentage of reserved categories, at the end of the roster, squeezing may have to be done for the reserved categories to reach the respective number of posts to be reserved for them without violating the 22% for SC, ST Page No.# 14/18 (P) and ST(H) limit in any cadre or group. To illustrate, if strength of a particular cadre is 36, there shall be 2 roster points for ST(H), 4 roster points for ST(P) and 3 roster points for SC as per chart notified by the Government. While verifying the percentage of reservation, it appears that the prescribed 22% is achieved at roster point No. 35. If another point i.e. roster point No. 36 is taken into consideration as reserved for SC, it comes to 25% which exceeds prescribed percentage. In this case, the rosters shall be squeezed and as a result, the roster point 36 shall be un- reserved and number of roster point for SC shall be reduced to 2.” 18.3. This aspect of the matter was considered by a Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, reported in (1995) 2 SCC 745. In the said case, the petitioners have challenged the reservation policy on several grounds, but, Mr. Harish Salve, learned counsel for the petitioners, has confined the arguments to the following two points: (1) The object of reservation is to provide adequate representation to the Scheduled Castes/Tribes and Backward Classes in services and as such any mechanism provided to achieve that end must have nexus to the object sought to be achieved. The precise argument is that for working out the percentage of reservation the promotees/ appointees belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes whether appointed against the general category posts or against the reserve posts are to be counted. In other words if more than 14% of the Scheduled Caste candidates are appointed/promoted in a cadre on their own merit/seniority by competing with the general category candidates then the purpose of Page No.# 15/18 reservation in the said cadre having been achieved, the Government instructions providing reservations would become inoperative. (2) Once the posts earmarked for the Scheduled Castes/Tribes and Backward Classes on the roster are filled the reservation is complete. Roster cannot operate any further and it should be stopped. Any post falling vacant, in a cadre thereafter, is to be filled from the category — reserve or general — due to retirement etc. of whose member the post fell vacant. 18.4. While rejecting first contention of Mr. Harish Salve, learned counsel for the petitioners, Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the second contention as under:- “ 5. We see considerable force in the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The reservations provided under the impugned Government instructions are to be operated in accordance with the roster to be maintained in each Department. The roster is implemented in the form of running account from year to year. The purpose of “running account” is to make sure that the Scheduled Castes/Schedule Tribes and Backward Classes get their percentage of reserved posts. The concept of “running account” in the impugned instructions has to be so interpreted that it does not result in excessive reservation. “16% of the posts …” are reserved for members of the Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes. In a lot of 100 posts those falling at Serial Numbers 1, 7, 15, 22, 30, 37, 44, 51, 58, 65, 72, 80, 87 and 91 have been reserved and earmarked in the roster for the Scheduled Castes. Roster points 26 and 76 are reserved for the members of Backward Classes. It is thus obvious that when recruitment to a cadre starts then 14 posts Page No.# 16/18 earmarked in the roster are to be filled from amongst the members of the Scheduled Castes. To illustrate, first post in a cadre must go to the Scheduled Caste and thereafter the said class is entitled to 7th, 15th, 22nd and onwards up to 91st post. When the total number of posts in a cadre are filled by the operation of the roster then the result envisaged by the impugned instructions is achieved. In other words, in a cadre of 100 posts when the posts earmarked in the roster for the Scheduled Castes and the Backward Classes are filled the percentage of reservation provided for the reserved categories is achieved. We see no justification to operate the roster thereafter. The “running account” is to operate only till the quota provided under the impugned instructions is reached and not thereafter. Once the prescribed percentage of posts is filled the numerical test of adequacy is satisfied and thereafter the roster does not survive. The percentage of reservation is the desired representation of the Backward Classes in the State Services and is consistent with the demographic estimate based on the proportion worked out in relation to their population. The numerical quota of posts is not a shifting boundary but represents a figure with due application of mind. Therefore, the only way to assure equality of opportunity to the Backward Classes and the general category is to permit the roster to operate till the time the respective appointees/promotees occupy the posts meant for them in the roster. The operation of the roster and the “running account” must come to an end thereafter. The vacancies arising in the cadre, after the initial posts are filled, will pose no difficulty. As and when there is a vacancy whether permanent or temporary in a particular post the same has to be filled from amongst the category to which the post belonged in the roster. For example the Scheduled Caste Page No.# 17/18 persons holding the posts at roster points 1, 7, 15 retire then these slots are to be filled from amongst the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes. Similarly, if the persons holding the post at points 8 to 14 or 23 to 29 retire then these slots are to be filled from among the general category. By following this procedure there shall neither be shortfall nor excess in the percentage of reservation. 18.5. Further, in the same decision, while examining a decision of a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “ 9. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in J.C. Malik v. Union of India [(1978) 1 SLR 844 (All)] interpreted Railway Board's circular dated 20-4-1970 providing 15% reservations for the Scheduled Castes. The High Court held that the percentage of reservation is in respect of the appointment to the posts in a cadre. On the basis of the material placed before the High Court it reached the conclusion that if the reservation is permitted in the vacancies after all the posts in a cadre are filled then serious consequences would ensue and the general category is likely to suffer considerably. We see no infirmity in the view taken by the High Court.” 19. Thus, considering the given facts and circumstances on the record, and also considering the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, and further drawing premises from the illuminating discourse, as above, this Court finds sufficient merit in the submission of Mr. Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner. After initial formation of the cadre in the Fakiragram College, the respondent authorities had already prepared 100 point roster register as per Office Memorandum dated 04.11.2013 (Annexure-7). 19.1. It is apparent from the roster register, i.e. Annexure I, at page No. 45 of Page No.# 18/18 the additional affidavit of respondent No.4 and it is clear that out of 15 posts, three post are being occupied by the ST(P) candidates. And if the post at Sl.No.15 of the roster register is reserved for the ST(P) candidate then it would exceed the percentage of reservation for the ST(P) candidates and will be contrary of reservation policy. That being the position, squeezing has to be done for the reserved categories to reach the respective number of posts to be reserved for them without violating the 22% for SC, ST (P) and ST(H) limit in any cadre or group, the roster point 15 shall be un- reserved. 20. In the result, I find sufficient merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands allowed. The impugned advertisement dated 26.11.2019 (Annexure-6) stands set aside and quashed being contrary to the reservation policy. Consequently, the respondent No. 5 shall re-advertise the post for unreserved category. 21. Let the aforesaid exercise be carried out within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent authorities, within a period of one week from today. The parties have to bear their own costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant