JUDGMENT : JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J. Petitioner emerged as meritorious candidate belonging to the reserved category. She had exercised option for appointment in districts as per her order of preference in accordance with law. Based upon her merit, respondents shifted the petitioner from reserved category to General category. Petitioner’s placement in the general category was not at higher pedestal. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner lost out on getting appointed in District Solan as per her preferred first option. It is against this background that the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition seeking directions to the respondents to allot her preferred district keeping in view her order of preference with all consequential benefits of seniority etc. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 3. The case 3(i). Petitioner completed Junior Basic Trained (JBT) Teacher training and got her name registered in the concerned employment exchange. This was in view of provision existing in the Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the post of JBT Teacher for making batch-wise recruitment alongwith other modes of recruitment. 3(ii). Respondent-Education Department issued an office letter/notification on 11.10.2023 to all concerned Deputy Directors of Elementary Education in the State on the subject of filling up of vacant posts of JBTs, inter alia, on batch-wise basis. In terms of the said office letter/notification, total 1161 posts of JBT Teachers were notified to be filled-up district wise. 108 posts were meant to be filled up in District Solan, out of which, 37 were meant for General category and 21 for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste category. The candidates, who were eligible for the posts to be filled up on batch-wise basis, were to appear for counselling in their home districts. As per the terms & conditions of the aforesaid office letter, ‘the candidates shall be allotted District as per his/her rank in the overall merit list read with the order of preference of the candidates. The allotted District will be displayed on the website of DEE. Merely listing of name in the shortlist drawn at District level or overall merit list drawn at Directorate level does not confer any right to the candidate for posting. The appointment shall be made after verification of documents in support of the eligibility criteria. The allotted District will be displayed on the website of DEE. Merely listing of name in the shortlist drawn at District level or overall merit list drawn at Directorate level does not confer any right to the candidate for posting. The appointment shall be made after verification of documents in support of the eligibility criteria. The draft of the appointment letter shall be uniform throughout the State and the specimen shall be shared by the Directorate shortly. The Principal/Headmaster concerned shall take the joining after verification of documents.’ The above was a categoric condition that the candidate was to be allotted the district as per his rank in the overall merit list read with the order of his preference. 3(iii). Petitioner being eligible for batch-wise recruitment as JBT Teacher, submitted her application as a Scheduled Caste category candidate. In her application form, she exercised her preference for districts in the following order:- “1. Solan 2. Shimla 3. Sirmour 4. Bilaspur 5. Kangra 6. Una 7. Hamirpur 8. Mandi 9. Kullu 10. Chamba 11. Kinnaur 12. Lahaul & Spiti.” 3(iv). Petitioner was called for interview by the respondent-Department. The result of the interview was declared on 27.08.2024. Petitioner was declared successful and placed at merit rank 450 in the consolidated merit list. She, however, was not allotted her first preference of District Solan, rather, was allotted District Shimla, which was her second preference. Taking stock of her position with merit rank 450, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents the same day, i.e. 27.08.2024, with the grievance that:- She belongs to District Solan; Her first preference was District Solan; She ranks higher in merit; The candidates below her in merit have been allotted District Solan; and she was also required to be allotted District Solan as per her first preference. Hearing no response, petitioner instituted this writ petition. On 09.09.2024, notice of this writ petition was issued and the respondents were directed to file reply/ instructions. Despite grant of repeated opportunities thereafter, reply to the petition has not been filed, though instructions have been placed on record pursuant to the orders passed from time to time. These instructions are dated nil August, 2025, nil September, 2025 and 16.12.2025. A compendium of documents was also placed on record alongwith instructions dated 16.12.2025. 4. Consideration 4(i). Despite grant of repeated opportunities thereafter, reply to the petition has not been filed, though instructions have been placed on record pursuant to the orders passed from time to time. These instructions are dated nil August, 2025, nil September, 2025 and 16.12.2025. A compendium of documents was also placed on record alongwith instructions dated 16.12.2025. 4. Consideration 4(i). Respondents have not disputed the fact that the petitioner had emerged as a meritorious candidate belonging to reserved category. That had the petitioner continued to remain in the reserved category, she would have been allotted District Solan, which was her first preference, in view of her merit position in that category. According to the respondents, petitioner, being a meritorious reserved category candidate and having scored marks much more than the cut-off in the general category, had to be shifted from reserved category to General category. She was accordingly shifted to General category, where her position went down in the merit list. As a consequence thereof, the candidates above her in the general category were adjusted as per their order of preference for allocation of districts. In this manner, the petitioner, as per her turn and merit position in the general category, was allotted District Shimla, which was her second preference. 4(ii).In Saurav Yadav v. State of U.P. (2021) 4 SCC 542 , after referring to previous precedents in the timeline on vertical reservation, it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the candidates belonging to any of the vertical reservation categories are entitled to be selected in open or general category. It was also held that if such candidates belonging to reserved categories are entitled to be selected on the basis of their own merit, their selection cannot be counted against the quota reserved for the categories to which they belonged. Further in Sadhana Singh Dangi v. Pinki Asati (2022) 12 SCC 401 , it was reiterated that reserved category candidates securing higher marks than the last of the general category candidates are entitled to get post/seat in unreserved categories. That even while applying horizontal reservation, merit must be given precedence and if the candidates, who belong to SCs, STs and OBCs, have secured higher marks or are more meritorious, they must be considered against the seats meant for unreserved candidates. That even while applying horizontal reservation, merit must be given precedence and if the candidates, who belong to SCs, STs and OBCs, have secured higher marks or are more meritorious, they must be considered against the seats meant for unreserved candidates. Candidates belonging to reserved categories can as well stake claim to seats in unreserved categories if their merit and position in the merit list entitles them to do so. 4(iii). The above position of law of shifting the reserved category candidates to general category on the basis of their higher merit, thereby making way for selection of more reserved category candidates in the reserved category list is by now well settled. In case a candidate belonging to reserved category has not availed any relaxation in age and fee etc., then based upon his merit, he is liable to be shifted to general category. The question involved in this writ petition is as to whether a meritorious candidate belonging to a reserved category, who is to be allotted posting in a district keeping in view her option based upon her merit in reserved category, can loose out on that option on account of her shifting from reserved category to general category, effected in view of her higher merit position in the reserved category. Somewhat similar proposition came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India Versus Ramesh Ram and others (2010) 7 SCC 234 . The case involved selection in Union Public Service examination, wherein based upon merit and preference of the selected candidate, different services were allocated to the candidates. The question being deliberated was whether the meritorious reserved category candidates after getting shifted to general category would still get their preferred services as per their option exercised as reserved category candidates. The legal question referred before the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court was:- “2. The constitutional validity of sub-rules (2) to (5) of Rule 16 of the Civil Services Examination Rules (hereinafter “the Rules”) relating to Civil Services Examinations held by the Union Public Service Commission in the years 2005 to 2007 is the subject-matter of these appeals by special leave. 3. The constitutional validity of sub-rules (2) to (5) of Rule 16 of the Civil Services Examination Rules (hereinafter “the Rules”) relating to Civil Services Examinations held by the Union Public Service Commission in the years 2005 to 2007 is the subject-matter of these appeals by special leave. 3. A three-Judge Bench of this Court, by order dated 14-5- 2009 has referred these cases to the Constitution Bench as it raises an important legal question as to whether candidates belonging to reserved category, who get recommended against general/unreserved vacancies on account of their merit (without the benefit of any relaxation/concession), can opt for a higher choice of service earmarked for reserved category and thereby migrate to reserved category.” Rule 2 of the Civil Services Examination relating to preferences as extracted in Ramesh Ram4 reads as under:- “6. Rule 2 of the Rules relates to preferences and is extracted below: “2.A candidate shall be required to indicate in his/her application form for the main examination his/her order of preferences for various services/posts for which he/she would like to be considered for appointment in case he/she is recommended for appointment by the Union Public Service Commission. A candidate who wishes to be considered for IAS/IPS shall be required to indicate in his/her application if he/she would like to be considered for allotment to the State to which he/she belongs in case he/she is appointed to the IAS/IPS. Note.-The candidate is advised to be very careful while indicating preferences for various services/posts. In this connection, attention is also invited to Rule 19 of the Rules. The candidate is also advised to indicate all the services/posts in the order of preference in his/her application form. In case he/she does not give any preference for any services/posts, it will be assumed that he/she has no specific preference for those services. If he/she is not allotted to any one of the services/posts for which he/she has indicated preference, he/she shall be allotted to any of the remaining services/posts in which there are vacancies after allocation of all the candidates who can be allocated to services/posts in accordance with their preferences.” Rule 16 of the above Rules, as extracted from the judgment hereinafter, was directly involved in the litigation and pertained to preparation of merit list and selection of candidates:- “9. Rule 16 lays down the manner of selection, preparation of merit list and selection of candidates. Rule 16 lays down the manner of selection, preparation of merit list and selection of candidates. The said rule is extracted below: “16(1). After interview, the candidates will be arranged by the Commission in the order of merit as disclosed by the aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidate in the main examination. Thereafter, the Commission shall, for the purpose of recommending candidates against unreserved vacancies, fix a qualifying mark (hereinafter referred to as “general qualifying standard”) with reference to the number of unreserved vacancies to be filled up on the basis of the main examination. For the purpose of recommending reserved category candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes against reserved vacancies, the Commission may relax the general qualifying standard with reference to number of reserved vacancies to be filled up in each of these categories on the basis of the main examination: Provided that the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward Classes who have not availed themselves of any of the concessions or relaxations in the eligibility or the selection criteria, at any stage of the examination and who after taking into account the general qualifying standards are found fit for recommendation by the Commission shall not be recommended against the vacancies reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward Classes. (2) While making service allocation, the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes recommended against unreserved vacancies may be adjusted against reserved vacancies by the Government if by this process they get a service of higher choice in the order of their preference. (3) The Commission may further lower the qualifying standards to take care of any shortfall of candidates for appointment against unreserved vacancies and any surplus of candidates against reserved vacancies arising out of the provisions of this rule, the Commission may make the recommendations in the manner prescribed in sub-rules (4) and (5). (4) While recommending the candidates, the Commission shall, in the first instance, take into account the total number of vacancies in all categories. (4) While recommending the candidates, the Commission shall, in the first instance, take into account the total number of vacancies in all categories. This total number of recommended candidates shall be reduced by the number of candidates belonging to the' Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes who acquire the merit at or above the fixed general qualifying standard without availing themselves of any concession of relaxation in the eligibility or selection criteria in terms of the proviso to sub-rule (1). Along with this list of recommended candidates, the Commission shall also declare a consolidated reserve list of candidates which will include candidates from general and reserved categories ranking in order of merit below the last recommended candidate under each category. The number of candidates in each of these categories will be equal to the number of reserved category candidates who were included in the first list without availing of any relaxation or concession in eligibility or selection criteria as per proviso to sub-rule (1). Amongst the reserved categories, the number of candidates from each of the Scheduled Caste, the Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Class categories in the reserve list will be equal to the respective number of vacancies reduced initially in each category. (5) The candidates recommended in terms of the provisions of sub-rule(4),shall be allocated by the Government to the services and where certain vacancies still remain to be filled up, the Government may forward a requisition to the Commission requiring it to recommend, in order of merit, from the reserve list, the same number of candidates as requisitioned for the purpose of filling up the unfilled vacancies in each category.” 10. Rule 19 provides that due consideration will be given at the time of making allocation on the results of the examination to the preferences expressed by a candidate for various services at the time of his application and the appointment to various services will also be governed by the rules/regulations in force, as applicable to the respective services at the time of appointment.” The questions framed by the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court for consideration were as under:- “20. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for different appellants, the following questions arise for consideration: I. Whether the reserved category candidates who were selected on merit (i.e. MRCs) and placed in the list of general category candidates could be considered as reserved category candidates at the time of “service allocation”? II. Whether Rules 16(2), (3), (4) and (5) of the CSE Rules are inconsistent with Rule 16(1) and violative of Articles 14, 16(4) and 335 of the Constitution of India? III. Whether the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal was valid to the extent that it relied on Anurag Patel v. U.P. Public Service Commission (2005) 9 SCC 742 (which in turn had referred to the judgment in Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul , (1996) 3 SCC 253 , which dealt with reservations for the purpose of admission to postgraduate medical courses); and whether the principles followed for reservations in admissions to educational institutions can be applied to examine the constitutionality of a policy that deals with reservation in civil services. Hon’ble Apex Court held that there is an obvious distinction between qualifying through an entrance test for securing admission in a medical college and qualifying in UPSC examinations since the latter examination is conducted for filling up vacancies in the various civil services. In the former case, all the successful candidates receive the same benefit of securing admission in an educational institution, however, the benefits accruing from successfully qualifying the UPSC examination are of a varying nature since some services are coveted more than others and successful candidates are also competing amongst themselves to secure the service of their choice. In this respect, a Meritorious Reserved Category candidate (MRC), who has qualified as part of the general list should not be disadvantaged by being assigned to a lower service against the vacancies in the general category, especially because if he had availed the benefit of his reserved category status, he would have got a service of higher preference. Thus, the reserved category candidates, who are selected on merit and placed in the list of general/unreserved category candidates, can choose to migrate to the respective reserved category at the time of allocation of services. Relevant paras from the decision read as under:- “32. Thus, the reserved category candidates, who are selected on merit and placed in the list of general/unreserved category candidates, can choose to migrate to the respective reserved category at the time of allocation of services. Relevant paras from the decision read as under:- “32. There is an obvious distinction between qualifying through an entrance test for securing admission in a medical college and qualifying in UPSC examinations since the latter examination is conducted for filling up vacancies in the various civil services. In the former case, all the successful candidates receive the same benefit of securing admission in an educational institution. However, in the latter case there are variations in the benefits that accrue to successful candidates because they are also competing amongst themselves to secure the service of their choice. For example, most candidates opt for at least one of the first three services [i.e. Indian Administrative Service (IAS), Indian Foreign Service (IFS) and Indian Police Service (IPS)] when they are asked for preferences. A majority of the candidates prefer IAS as the first option. In this respect, a reserved category candidate who has qualified as part of the general list should not be disadvantaged by being assigned to a lower service against the vacancies in the general category especially because if he had availed the benefit of his reserved category status, he would have got a service of a higher preference. With the obvious intention of preventing such an anomaly, Rule 16(2) provides that an MRC candidate is at liberty to choose between the general quota or the respective reserved category quota. 38. Furthermore, the impugned judgment did not appreciate the possibility that when an SC/ST/OBC candidate qualifies on merit (i.e. without any relaxation/ concession) there can be a situation where a lower- ranked OBC candidate gets allotted to a better service in comparison to a higher-ranked SC/ST/OBC candidate simply because the higher-ranked OBC candidate performed well enough to qualify in the general category. Such a situation is anomalous. As we have already discussed, the High Court’s reliance on the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Satya Prakash (2006) 4 SCC 550 , is not tenable since it dealt with the effect of Rule 16(2) as it existed prior to the amendment notified on 4-12-2004.” Hon’ble Supreme Court answered the reference as under:- 72. As we have already discussed, the High Court’s reliance on the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Satya Prakash (2006) 4 SCC 550 , is not tenable since it dealt with the effect of Rule 16(2) as it existed prior to the amendment notified on 4-12-2004.” Hon’ble Supreme Court answered the reference as under:- 72. We sum up our answers: (i) MRC candidates who avail the benefit of Rule 16(2) and adjusted in the reserved category should be counted as part of the reserved pool for the purpose of computing the aggregate reservation quotas. The seats vacated by MRC candidates in the general pool will be offered to general category candidates. (ii) By operation of Rule 16(2), the reserved status of an MRC candidate is protected so that his/her better performance does not deny him of the chance to be allotted to a more preferred service. (iii) The amended Rule 16(2) only seeks to recognise the inter se merit between two classes of candidates i.e. (a) meritorious reserved category candidates (b) relatively lower ranked reserved category candidates, for the purpose of allocation to the various civil services with due regard for the preferences indicated by them. (iv) The reserved category candidates “belonging to OBC, SC/ST categories” who are selected on merit and placed in the list of general/unreserved category candidates can choose to migrate to the respective reserved category at the time of allocation of services. Such migration as envisaged by Rule 16(2) is not inconsistent with Rule 16(1) or Articles 14, 16(4) and 335 of the Constitution.” 4(iv).Facts of the present case are more aligned to that of Ramesh Ram4. Instant is not a case of recruitment per se to the post of JBT Teacher. Based upon selection as JBT Teacher on batch-wise basis, the candidate is also assigned a particular district. Allocation of district is as per the option of preferences exercised by the candidate. Based upon candidate’s position in the merit list, his different preferences in order of merit are considered. In case of candidate being higher in merit, there is more likelihood of his getting allocated first preferred district as per his option. The candidate’s chance in getting his first preferred district as per his option becomes less in case of his being lower in the merit list. In case of candidate being higher in merit, there is more likelihood of his getting allocated first preferred district as per his option. The candidate’s chance in getting his first preferred district as per his option becomes less in case of his being lower in the merit list. Respondents have themselves admitted that the petitioner was higher in merit in the reserved category (Scheduled Caste) and was placed at Sr. No.450 in the consolidated merit list. It has also been admitted by the respondents that had the petitioner been allowed to retain her position in the Scheduled Caste category list or her option was considered as a candidate in the reserved category, under which she had applied, petitioner would have definitely been allotted District Solan as per her first preference. It has come out in the instructions of the respondents that one Ms. Nisha Kumari was selected in the same recruitment process under Scheduled Caste category. Being lower in overall merit, she was not shifted to General (Unreserved) category, yet, she was allotted District Solan based on her preference and availability of posts in the Scheduled Caste category in District Solan. The petitioner cannot be made a victim of her being a more meritorious reserved category candidate by shifting her from reserved category to general category based upon her higher merit and then making her suffer by not allotting her the district as per her first preference in view of her lower placement in the general category merit list. Shifting of more meritorious reserved category candidates to general category list without their accompanying baggage of options would be in accordance with law, provided when there are no adverse consequences attached to it in a case of recruitment simpliciter, but not when that recruitment is also intrinsically bonded with exercise of options for allocation of district as per preference, to be considered based upon merit in the category list. For want of any defined rules/instructions in office letter dated 11.10.2023, in the given facts and circumstances, respondents would have been well advised to first take the option of the reserved category candidates as to whether they would like to be shifted to general category list and/or letting them exercise their option as reserved category candidate despite their being shifted to general category list. This, however, has not been done. 5. This, however, has not been done. 5. In view of above discussion, injustice caused to the petitioner becomes writ large. Petitioner is being made to suffer by the respondents on account of her having been placed at much higher position in the consolidated merit list by shifting her on that basis from Scheduled Caste category to General category and on that basis not considering her first preference for allocating district as per her option exercised as a Scheduled Caste category candidate. For the foregoing discussion, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to allot District Solan instead of District Shimla to the petitioner consequent upon her selection and appointment as JBT Teacher in terms of the option exercised by her. All consequences including assigning petitioner’s seniority in District Solan from the date of her assigned seniority in District Shimla shall follow. To obviate the adoption of wrong procedure in future, respondents are also directed to frame rules/instructions prescribing the procedure to be adopted where a meritorious reserved category candidate scores higher marks than the cut-off marks for General (Unreserved) category in a recruitment process, where allocation of district is based upon candidate’s preferred choices to be considered based upon his order of merit, to ensure that meritorious reserved category candidate is not put to disadvantage on account of his shifting from reserved category to General (Unreserved) category. This exercise be carried out in accordance with law within eight weeks keeping in view the above observations. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.