2025:CGHC:15567 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2624 of 2015 Reserved on : 07 .01.2025 Delivered on : 03.04.2025 Smt. Bhumika Sahu W/o Shri Narottam Sahu Aged About 32 Years Resident Of G-4/2, High Court Colony, Rahangi Road, Achanakpur, Chakar-Bhata, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus 1. High Court Of Chhattisgarh Through Registrar General, Bodri, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2. Registrar General, High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bodri Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. Smt. Bhawna Bagmare W/o Shri Suresh Kumar Bagmare At Present Posted As AG-III At High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bodri, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. Smt. Alka Namdev W/o Shri Bihar Namdev C/o Arya Computer Job, Near State Bank Of India Main Branch Near Sbi Atm Machine Gandhi Chowk, Bilaspur, Chhattigarh At Present Posted As AG-III At High Court Of Chhattisgarh Bodri Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5. Kumari Anita, D/o Shri Bholaram C/o Shri Ravidas Inomerator, Office Of Deputy Director, Vatenary Health Services Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh, At Present Posted As AG-III At High Court Of Chhattisgarh Bodri, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6. Kumari Poonam Nirmalkar D/o Shri Vedram Nirmalkar Resident Of H-36, Nutan Colony Sarkanda Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, At Present Posted As AG-III At High Court Of Chhattisgarh Bodri, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7. Kumari Poonam Sahu D/o Madanlal Sahu Near The Residence Of Member Of Parliament Mack Cloud Warehouse Road Bilaspur, At Present Posted As AG-III At High Court Of Chhattisgarh Bodri, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2025.04.03 13:09:13 +0530 8. Kumari Bharti D/o Ishwar Dayal Resident Of Village And Post Selud, Police Station Utai, Tehsil Patan District Durg, Chhattisgarh, At Present Posted As AG-III At High Court Of Chhattisgarh Bodri, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 9. Rina Nirmalkar, working on the post of Assistant Grade 3, District & Session Court, Durg C.G. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocate. For Res. No. 1 & 2/ High Court : Mr. Sumesh Bajaj along with Mr. Ayush Verma, Advocate. For Res. No. 3, 4, 5 & 8 : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. For Res. No. 6 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha along with Mr. Somya Das, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas, J. CAV ORDER 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of direction to the respondent authorities to consider the name of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Assistant Grade-III from Other Backward Class (Women) category with all consequential benefits like salary, seniority and increments at par with the selected candidates who have been appointed vide order dated 08.01.2015. 2. The brief facts as reflected from records are that respondent/Registrar General, High Court of Chhattisgarh issued an advertisement in the year 2013-14 for appointment on various posts i.e. Stenographer, Translator, Assistant Librarian, Assistant Grade-III (Computer) including 33 posts of Assistant Grade-III which consists of 13 posts for unreserved (including 4 for women & 1 for Physically Disabled persons), 4 posts for SC (including 1 for women), 11 posts for ST (including 3 for Women & 1 for Physically Disabled persons) & 5 posts for OBC (including 2 for Women)]. The last date for submission of form was 07.02.2014. The petitioner applied for the said post under Other Backward Class (OBC) Women category. The petitioner has obtained total 27 marks which consists of 12.5 marks for Skill Test/Hindi Typing), 13 marks for Skill Test/English Typing and 1.5 marks for interview but could not find place in the merit position due to wrong application of reservation rules and could not be selected on the aforesaid post. 3. It is also case of the petitioner that in the category wise list issued by the High Court, the highest marks obtained by the unreserved (Women) category is 28.50 marks and lowest one was 26 marks. Similarly for OBC (Women) category, the candidate who has secured 27.75 marks has been found place in the top and the candidate who has secured 27.25 marks has been found place in the last place of selected candidate. On above factual foundation, the petitioner would submit that the High Court has committed illegality in not placing the OBC (Women) candidate in the list of General (Women) category though they have obtained marks more than the General (Women) category by not applying horizontal reservation which is violation of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Special Provision for appointment of Women) Rules, 1997 (for short “the Rules, 1997”). 4. It has been further contended that if two candidates of OBC (Women) category namely Poonam Sahu & Bharti who have obtained 27.50 & 27.25 respectively which is more/equal than the marks obtained by Anita Namdeo & Poonam Nirmalkar, each have obtained 27.25, as such they should have been shifted into the list of General category. Accordingly, Anita Namdeo & Poonam Nirmalkar who are in General (Women) category could not have been appointed by the respondent. It has also been contended that if this anomaly is cured by the respondents by applying the correct position of law then case of Rina Nirmalkar & the present petitioner deserves to be considered for appointment on the post of Assistant Grade-III. 5. Since Rina Nirmalkar was not party to the case, therefore, the petitioner moved an application on 11.01.2024 for adding Rina Nirmalkar as respondent No. 9 which was allowed by this Court on 06.03.2024. It has also been contended by the petitioner that Rina Nirmalkar is presently working as Assistant Grade-III in District Court establishment at Durg, therefore, she may not be interested to get employment in the High Court, as such she will be placed in the waiting list No. 1 as such, the petitioner would pray for issuing appointment order in her favour. 6. The petitioner has also filed I.A. No. 04/2019 for taking additional documents on record and also filed documents pertaining to the selection list of unreserved category on the post of Assistant Grade-III, Stenographer for 2018-19 wherein the High Court has included the OBC category selected candidates in the list of unreserved category who have secured marks more than the General category candidates which clearly demonstrates that the respondents have not followed the correct reservation rules and the selection process for the year 2014-15, deserves to be vitiated on account of violation of Rules, 1997, therefore, she is entitled to get the relief as prayed for in the writ petition and would pray for directing respondent No. 1 & 2 to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner with all consequential benefits including seniority and monetary benefits. 7. To substantiate his submissions, he would refer to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India [(1992) Supp. (3) SCC 217], R.K. Sabharwal Vs. State of Punjab [(1995) 2 SCC 745], Saurabh Yadav & others Vs. State of U.P. & others [(2021) 4 SCC 542], Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & another Vs. Sandeep Choudhary & others [(2022) 11 SCC 779], Sadhana Singh Dangi & others Vs. Pinky Asati & others [(2022) 12 SCC 401], Dinesh Kumar Kashyap Vs. South East Central Railway [(2019) 12 SCC 798], Kapil Kumar & others Vs. State of U.P. & others [Special Appeal No. 93/2023]. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 & 2/High Court opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the instant petition is not maintainable as it is settled principle of law that after taking part in a selection process and turning out to be unsuccessful the selection process cannot be criticized. The petitioner herself took part in the selection process and after being unsuccessful has challenged the entire selection process alleging the same to be illegal which is not permissible in law. He would further submit that as per Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Special Provision for appointment of Women) Rules, 1997, 30% posts reserved for women shall be horizontal and compartment wise will be applicable. He would further submit that the petitioner has claimed benefits under Rules, 1997 which are as set of special rules made for the reservation of women candidates, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to take rely or support of general principles regarding reservation and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. He would further submit that the writ petition is not maintainable as according to the petitioner, the petitioner is at serial No. 2 of the wait list candidate whereas waiting list No. 1-Ku. Rina Nirmalkar was not initially party to the case and she has been arrayed as party to the case after lapse of 9 years of filing of the petition which cannot be given retrospective effect to challenge the wait list as the wait list stood expired after one year of issuance of selection list on 05.01.2015. He would further submit that even this Court while admitting the petition has not granted any interim order in favour of the petitioner, as such also the claim of the petitioner for issuing direction to consider the merit candidate of women reservation as general category (Women) cannot be considered due to efflux of time. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. To substantiate this submission, he would refer to the judgment rendered by Hoh’ble the Supreme Court in the case reported in (2017) 13 SCC 836, 2011 SCC Online Del 4953, (2009) 3 SCC 227, (2013) 11 SCC 309 & 1987 (Supp.) SCC 93. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3, 4, 5 & 8 adopts the submission made by learned counsel for respondent No. 1 & 2/ High Court and would submit that appointment of respondents No. 3, 4, 5 & 8 are in accordance with law duly followed by respondent No. 1 & 2. He would further submit that the petitioner could not find place in the merit hence not selected, therefore, she is not entitled for grant of any relief by this Court and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 11. Learned counsel for respondent No. 6 adopts the submission made by learned counsel for respondent No. 1 & 2/ High Court and would submit that respondent No. 6 has been appointed in accordance with law which has been done by respondent No. 1 & 2 after complying with the every established procedure of law. He would further submit that the petitioner could not find place in the merit hence not selected, therefore, she is not entitled for grant of any relief by this Court and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 12. This Court has issued notice to respondent No. 9 which has been duly served and report of notice Hamdast has also been placed on record but she has chosen not to appear before this Court. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 14. From the submissions made by the parties the point emerged for determination by this Court are:- Point No. 1 : Whether the respondents have correctly followed the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Special Provision for appointment of Women) Rules, 1997 by providing horizontal and vertical reservation? Point No. 2 : Whether the petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed for in this writ petition? Submission, discussion and finding on Point No. 1 15. To appreciate, Point No. 1, it is expedient for this Court to extract and consider the Rules, 1997. Rule 3 of the said rules provides as under:- “3. Reservation of posts for Women- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any service Rules, there shall be reserved thirty percent of all posts in service under the State [in favour of women only who are local residents of State of Chhattisgarh] at the stage of direct recruitment and the said reservation shall be horizontal and compartmentwise. (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (1) in the said appointments preference shall be given to the widow or divorced Women. Explanation- For the purposes of this rule “horizontal and compartmentwise” means reservation in each category, namely Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and General.” 16. The Rules, 1997 provides for vertical and horizontal reservation, therefore, it is expedient for this Court to briefly understand the concept of vertical and horizontal reservation which are as under:- “Vertical Reservation- Vertical reservation is the primary form of reservation aimed at uplifting socially and educationally backward classes. This type of reservation applies exclusively to specific groups and does not extend to individuals outside these categories. Vertical reservation applies only to specified groups (SCs, STs, OBCs). A fixed percentage of seats or jobs is allocated to these groups. Candidates who qualify in the general category on merit are not counted within the reserved quota. The vertical reservation cannot exceed 50% of the total seats/jobs as per the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. The candidates who are claiming reservation can avail only one vertical reservation i.e. reservation for SC, ST, or OBC. Horizontal Reservation- Horizontal reservation is a sub- category within vertical reservations. It ensures equitable opportunities for disadvantaged individuals, cutting across caste-based vertical categories. It applies to groups such as women, persons with disabilities, ex-servicemen, and transgender individuals. The horizontal reservation applies within each vertical category i.e. SC, ST, OBC, General. The beneficiaries can retain their caste-based identity but also qualify under the horizontal quota. Unlike vertical reservation, horizontal reservation does not add extra seats but redistributes within existing quotas. The candidates can benefit from both vertical and horizontal reservations (e.g., an SC woman can avail both SC and women’s quota)”. 17. The concept of vertical and horizontal reservation is always subject matter of consideration before Hon’ble the Supreme Court and various High Courts. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Ramnaresh @ Rinku Kushwah Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others [2024 SCC OnLine SC 2058] has held as under:- “10. By now, it is a well-settled principle of law that a candidate belonging to any of the vertical reservation categories who on the basis of his own merit is entitled to be selected in the open or general category, will be selected against the general category and his selection would not be counted against the quota reserved for such vertical reservation categories. Reliance in this respect could be placed on the 9-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Indra Sawhney and Others v. Union of India and Others3, and in the cases of R.K. Sabharwal and Others v. State of Punjab and Others4 and Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul and Others5. 11. However, this Court, in the case of Saurav Yadav (supra), had an occasion to consider for the first time as to whether the said principle laid down in the case of Indra Sawhney (supra) and followed subsequently would also apply to the cases of horizontal reservation. Prior to the said judgment, there were conflicting views of different High Courts. This Court, after surveying various earlier 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 (1995) 2 SCC 745 : 1995 INSC 108 (1996) 3 SCC 253 : 1996 NSC 258 pronouncements and considering the views as expressed by the High Courts, observed thus: “43. Finally, we must say that the steps indicated by the High Court of Gujarat in para 69 of its judgment in Tamannaben Ashokbhai Desai [Tamannaben Ashokbhai Desai v. Shital Amrutlal Nishar, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2592] contemplate the correct and appropriate procedure for considering and giving effect to both vertical and horizontal reservations. The illustration given by us deals with only one possible dimension. There could be multiple such possibilities. Even going by the present illustration, the first female candidate allocated in the vertical column for Scheduled Tribes may have secured higher position than the candidate at Serial No. 64. In that event said candidate must be shifted from the category of Scheduled Tribes to Open/General category causing a resultant vacancy in the vertical column of Scheduled Tribes. Such vacancy must then enure to the benefit of the candidate in the waiting list for Scheduled Tribes- Female. The steps indicated by the Gujarat High Court will take care of every such possibility. It is true that the exercise of laying down a procedure must necessarily be left to the authorities concerned but we may observe that one set out in said judgment will certainly satisfy all claims and will not lead to any incongruity as highlighted by us in the preceding paragraphs.” 12. It could thus be seen that, this Court approved the steps indicated by the High Court of Gujarat in paragraph 69 of its judgment in the case of Tamannaben Ashokbhai Desai v. Shital Amrutlal Nishar6 for considering and giving effect to 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2592 both vertical and horizontal reservations. In the said case, this Court was considering horizontal reservation for the female candidates. It was observed that a meritorious reserved category candidate who is entitled to the General category of the said horizontal reservation on his own merit, will have to be allotted a seat from the said General category of the horizontal reservation. Meaning thereby such a candidate cannot be counted in a horizontal seat reserved for the category of vertical reservation like SC/ST. 13. It will also be apposite to refer to the following observations made by S. Ravindra Bhat, J. in his concurring judgment: “66. I would conclude by saying that reservations, both vertical and horizontal, are method of ensuring representation in public services. These are not to be seen as rigid “slots”, where a candidate's merit, which otherwise entitles her to be shown in the open general category, is foreclosed, as the consequence would be, if the State's argument is accepted. Doing so, would result in a communal reservation, where each social category is confined within the extent of their reservation, thus negating merit. The open category is open to all, and the only condition for a candidate to be shown in it is merit, regardless of whether reservation benefit of either type is available to her or him.” [emphasis supplied] 14. It could thus be seen that the learned Judge clearly observed that the horizontal as well as the vertical reservation would not be seen as rigid “slots”, where a candidate's merit, which otherwise entitles her or him to be shown in the open general category, is foreclosed. It was observed that by doing so, it would result in communal reservation, where each social category is confined within the extent of their reservation, thus negating merit. It was observed that the open category is open to all, and the only condition for a candidate to be shown in it is merit, regardless of whether reservation benefit of either type is available to her or him. 15. The said view was reiterated by this Court in the case of Sadhana Singh Dangi and Others v. Pinki Asati and Others7. 16. In view of the settled position of law as laid down by this Court in the case of Saurav Yadav (supra) and reiterated in the case of Sadhana Singh Dangi (supra), the methodology adopted by the respondents in compartmentalizing the different categories in the horizontal reservation and restricting the migration of the meritorious reserved category (2022) 12 SCC 401 : 2021 INSC 907 candidates to the unreserved seats is totally unsustainable. In view of the law laid down by this Court, the meritorious candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC, who on their own merit, were entitled to be selected against the UR-GS quota, have been denied the seats against the open seats in the GS quota.” 18. Thus, from the above-stated legal position and also considering the fact that since OBC (Women) category has secured marks higher than the General (Women) category as such, the OBC Women candidate should be marched to General (Women) category which may consequentially vacate two seats of OBC (Women) category. So far as this legal submission is well settled by Hon’ble the Supreme Court and the respondents have committed illegality in not following the reservation Rules, 1997 in its letter and spirit, therefore, Point No. 1 is answered in favour of the petitioner. Submission, discussion and finding on Point No. 2 19. Record of the case clearly demonstrates that the private respondents are working since 2015 in the High Court establishment and subsequently they have been promoted and well placed in their life. As such, it will be unjustifiable for this Court to unsettle the settled things by quashing the appointment order of private respondents. There is another reason for this Court not to interfere in the appointment of private respondents as it is not their fault but due to wrong application of provisions of reservation Rules, 1997, they have been appointed and worked for more than 9 years. Whether interference in the appointment order of private respondents after 9 years will be justified or not, has come up for consideration before Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Sivanandan C.T. Vs. High Court of Kerala, [(2024) 3 SCC 799] wherein it has been held as under:- “E. Conclusions 57. The following are our conclusions in view of the above discussions: 57.1 The principles of good administration require that the decisions of public authorities must withstand the test of consistency, transparency, and predictability to avoid being termed as arbitrary and violative of Article 14; 57.2 An individual who claims a benefit or entitlement based on the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation has to establish the following: (i) the legitimacy of the expectation; and that (ii) the denial of the legitimate expectation led to a violation of Article 14; 57.3 A public authority must objectively demonstrate by placing relevant material before the court that its decision was in the public interest to frustrate a claim of legitimate expectation; 57.4 The decision of the High Court of Kerala to apply a minimum cut-off to the viva voce examination is contrary to Rule 2(c)(iii) of the 1961 Rules. 57.5 The High Court’s decision to apply the minimum cut- off marks for the viva voce frustrates the substantive legitimate expectation of the petitioners. The decision is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. 57.6 In terms of relief, we hold that it would be contrary to the public interest to direct the induction of the petitioners into the Higher Judicial Service after the lapse of more than six years. Candidates who have been selected nearly six years ago cannot be unseated. They were all qualified and have been serving the district judiciary of the state. Unseating them at this stage would be contrary to public interest. To induct the petitioners would be to bring in new candidates in preference to those who are holding judicial office for a length of time. To deprive the state and its citizens of the benefit of these experienced judicial officers at a senior position would not be in public interest.” 20. Similarly Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Vivek Kaisth Vs. State of H.P. [(2024) 2 SCC 269] has held in paragraph 44 as under:- “44. What is also important for our consideration at this stage is that the appellants in the present case have been working as judicial officers now for nearly 10 years. They are now Civil Judge (Senior Division). These judicial officers now have a rich experience of 10 years of judicial service behind them. Therefore, unseating the present appellants from their posts would not be in public interest. Ordinarily, these factors as we have referred above, would not matter, once the very appointment is held to be wrong. But we also cannot fail to consider that the appellants were appointed from the list of candidates who had successfully passed the written examination and viva voce and they were in the merit list. Secondly, it is nobody's case that the appellants have been appointed by way of favouritism, nepotism or due to any act which can even remotely be called as “blameworthy”. Finally, they have now been working as Judges for ten years. There is hence a special equity which leans in favour of the appellants.” 21. Similarly Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Anmol Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of Jharkhand [(2021) 5 SCC 424] has held in paragraphs 10 & 11 as under: “10. On behalf of the writ petitioners, it was argued that though the selections initially were made on the basis of preference to the 3 categories of posts that were advertised. It was later found that the select list should have been prepared on the basis of merit and thereafter, preference has to be taken into account. Having realised the mistake that was committed, the authorities revised the select list pursuant to which the appointment of the writ petitioners was cancelled. By the time a decision was taken to revise the select list and cancel their appointments the writ petitioners had completed their training and had worked for a considerable period of time. According to them, the High Court correctly granted relief to the writ petitioners by taking into account the fact that they were not responsible for the irregularities committed in the preparation of the initial select list. 11. Two issues arise for our consideration. The first relates to the correctness of the direction given by the High Court to reinstate the writ petitioners. The High Court directed reinstatement of the writ petitioners after taking into account the fact that they were beneficiaries of the select list that was prepared in an irregular manner. However, the High Court found that the writ petitioners were not responsible for the irregularities committed by the authorities in preparation of the select list. Moreover, the writ petitioners were appointed after completion of training and worked for some time. The High Court was of the opinion that the writ petitioners ought to be considered for reinstatement without affecting the rights of other candidates who were already selected. A similar situation arose in Vikas Pratap Singh case [Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2013) 14 SCC 494 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 100] , where this Court considered that the appellants therein were appointed due to an error committed by the respondents in the matter of valuation of answer scripts. As there was no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation committed by the appellants therein, the termination of their services was set aside as it would adversely affect their careers. That the appellants therein had successfully undergone training and were serving the State for more than 3 years was another reason that was given by this Court for setting aside the orders passed by the High Court. As the writ petitioners are similarly situated to the appellants in Vikas Pratap Singh case [Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2013) 14 SCC 494 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 100] , we are in agreement with the High Court that the writ petitioners are entitled to the relief granted. Moreover, though on pain of contempt, the writ petitioners have been reinstated and are working at present.” 22. Now what relief the petitioner is entitled to get. Admittedly, the petitioner was wait list candidate and the wait list candidate has no indefeasible right to be appointed but considering the fact that respondents No. 1 & 2 have applied wrong position of law which has compelled her to be in the wait list of selected candidates, in view of available vacancies, I deem it proper to accommodate the petitioner without disturbing the selection and appointment already made to do complete justice in the following manner. 23. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in a case where wrong application of reservation rules have been followed, has specifically considered in case of Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & others [(2007) 8 SCC 785] and has held as under:- “12………….Further all the selected candidates are not impleaded as parties, Even from among the original ten writ petitioners, only seven are before us. On the facts and circumstances, we do not propose to disturb the selection list dated 31-12-2001 or interfere with the appointment already made in pursuance of it. We will only consider whether the appellants before us are entitled to relief. We find that even if the selection list had been prepared by applying horizontal reservation properly, only the appellant (Rajesh Kumar Daria) in this appeal, and Appellants 3 and 6 in the connected appeal (Mohan Lal Soni and Sunil Kumar Gupta) will get selected. The other appellants were not eligible to be selected. 13. In view of the above and in view of available vacancies, we deem it just and proper to accommodate those three candidates without disturbing the selections and appointments already made, to do complete justice, in the following manner:- 13.1. Sunil Kumar Gupta (general category candidate with 184 marks) and Mohan Lal Soni (OBC candidate with 169 marks), who ought to have been selected in the 2001 selection list, and who were denied appointment in view of excess selection of woman candidates, shall be deemed to have been selected by RPSC. As a consequence, necessary letters of appointment shall be issued to them. Their seniority for all purposes will however, be counted only from the date of actual appointment.” 24. As the petitioner was included in the wait list of 2014 due to wrong application of reservation Rules, 1997 and was denied appointment in view of not selecting the Women OBC category candidates as General category candidates, she shall be deemed to have been selected by the respondents/High Court. 25. As a consequence, necessary letter of appointment shall be issued to the petitioner. Her seniority for all purposes will however be counted only from the date of actual appointment and will be placed below in the seniority list of Assistant Grade-III and she will not be entitled to get any back-wages for the period she has not been worked with the High Court. 26. Consequently, Point No. 2 is also answered partially in favour of the petitioner by directing the respondent to appoint the petitioner without back-wages. 27. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun