J. M. Srivastava, J. — These two petitions on same facts raise similar questions and accordingly were beard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The undisputed facts in both the petitions are that in the year 1989, the Gauhati High Court, hereinafter referred as the 'High Court' on the requisition placed by the Government of Manipur, hereinafter referred as the 'Government' invited applications by an advertisement dated 13.2.89 (Annexure A/3) in which the number of vacancies were not specified, and held competitive examination comprising of written and viva-voice test for recruitment to Manipur Judicial Service Grade III (Munsiffs and Judicial Magistrates) hereinafter referred as the 'Service' The petitioner in each petition was a candidate and appeared at the examination. Sri Songkhupchung Serto, the petitioner in Civil Rule No. 399 of 1990 belongs to a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Manipur. Sri Th. Salmon Singh, the petitioner in the other Civil Rule was a general candidate. The High Court by letter No. HC. VII-85/88/26676/A dated 19.1089 recommended to the Government for appointment, Shri S. Imocha Singh and Km. S. Tara Devi who were placed first and second in order of merit. Then Minister-in- charge, Law, wrote to the High Court for recommending two more names for appointment in order to fill up all the vacancies which then existed in the Service. The High Court then recommended Sri S. Serto and Sri Th. Saimon Singh, the present petitioners who had secured third and fourth rank in order of merit, for appointment. The respondent Government by order dated 26.2.90 (Annexures-A/4 and A/5) appointed Sri S. Imocha Singh and Km. S. Tara Devi to the Service. The petitioners were not appointed. The Government sent requisition to the Manipur Public Service Commission, hereinafter referred as the Commission, for the other two posts. The Commission then invited applications by advertisement dated 29.6.90 for two posts in the Service, one of which was reserved for Scheduled Tribe. 3. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the petitions for mandamus/direction to the respondent Government to appoint them to the Service. 4. The Commission then invited applications by advertisement dated 29.6.90 for two posts in the Service, one of which was reserved for Scheduled Tribe. 3. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the petitions for mandamus/direction to the respondent Government to appoint them to the Service. 4. The petitioner in Civil Rule No. 399 of 1^90 h*s contended that the respondent Government did not follow the provisions of its own Office Memorandum dated 16.2.74 (Annexure A/I) for reservation of posts for Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes, and the model roster for reservation of posts in terms of Office Memorandum No. 9/1/63-S dated 6th April, 1974 (Aunexure-A/2) with the result that two posts for Scheduled Tribes which ought to have been filled by Scheduled Tribe candidates were not so filled and the petitioner was illegally deprived of his right to appointment to the post which should have been reserved for Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner in the other petition has contended that he was duly recommended for appointment by the High Court on the requisition made by the then. Minister-in-charge, taw ;and accordingly he had right to appointment. 5. The respondent, the State of Manipur has resisted the petitions, on the allegations that under Rule 6 (i) (a) (b) of the Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 1976, hereinafter as the 'Rules', vacancies in a particular year were to be filled in proportion of two third through the Commission and one third through the High Court. In the year 1988 there were/ two vacancies in the Service against the roster point 21 and 22. The Jailer viz No 22 was Scheduled Tribe vacancy. The Government requested the High Court for recommendation of suitable candidate for post against the roster point 21. The Government also requested the Commission for recommendation for post in respect of roster point 22. The Commission recommended a Scheduled Tribe candidate who had been appointed to post against roster point No. 22. However, in 1989 more vacancies had come into existence. The High Court recommended two persons, namely S Imocha Singh and Km. S. Tara Devi who had been appointed to the posts against roster points 21 and 23. Both of them were general candidates. For the vacancies against roster point 24 and 25, requisition was sent to the Commission which held examination and recommended one general candidate and one Scheduled Tribe candidate for appointment. S. Tara Devi who had been appointed to the posts against roster points 21 and 23. Both of them were general candidates. For the vacancies against roster point 24 and 25, requisition was sent to the Commission which held examination and recommended one general candidate and one Scheduled Tribe candidate for appointment. The respon­dent Government pleaded that there has been no violation of any provision for reservation. The petitioners had no right to appointment. 6. Km. S. Tara Devi respondent No. 4 in Civil Rule No. 399 of 1990 has filed an affidavit-in-opposition. 7. We have heard Sri N. Koteshwar Singb, learned counsel for the petitioner in Civil Rule No. 399 of 1990 and Sri S. Jayanta, for the petitioner in the other Civil Rule, Sri N. Surjamani Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 in Civil Rule No. 399 of 1990 and Sri L. Shyamkishore Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Government. The other respondents were not represented. 8. The relevant part of Rule 6 of the Rules which provides for recruitment to the Service read as under : ''Rule 6 (i) Appointment to the posts in Grade-Ill in any one year, shall be made by the Governor in the manner indicated below : (a) By filling up two third of the posts on the result of the competitive examination to be conducted by the Commission in the manner laid down in Schedule 'B' appended to these Rules ; (b) by filling up to remaining one third posts by selection from amongst the members of the Bar by the Gauhuti High Court. (Emphasis supplied) Rule 6 thus provides for recruitment to the Service in a year on the result of the examination conducted by the Commission and selection made by the High Court in the proportion two-third and one third respectively. The recruitment under the Rules commenced in the year 1976. In Civil Rule No.399 of 1990, the petitioner filed a chart (Annexure-A/8) showing the recruitments made from the year ]$76 to 1990 with other relevant infor­mation. The recruitment under the Rules commenced in the year 1976. In Civil Rule No.399 of 1990, the petitioner filed a chart (Annexure-A/8) showing the recruitments made from the year ]$76 to 1990 with other relevant infor­mation. The above chart which has not been disputed shows that in the year 1976 all the three persons were appointed on the recommendation of the High Court, in 1977 all the six persons were appointed on the recommenda­tion of the Commission, in the year 1978 and 1979 there was no recruitment, in the year 1980 two persons were appointed on the recommendation of the High Court; in 1981 all the five persons were appointed on the recommendation of the Commission ; in 1982 only one person was appointed through the High Court ; there was no recruitment in the years 1983, 1984 and 1985; in the year 1986 only one person was appointed through the High Court; in the years 1987, 1988, and 1989 one person' each was appointed through the Commission. It may thus be seen that the application of Rule 6 referred above has not been adhered to and recruitment to the Service in a particular year was not made strictly in accordance with Rule 6 of the Rules, may be because the number of vacancies were small. 9. The sanctioned strength of the Service is eleven. 10. The Government of Manipur had issued Office Memorandum dated 16th February, 1974 (Annexure-A/l) providing for reservation for Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes and the percentage of reservation for Scheduled Tribes in the Service was 31%. The percentage of reservation for Scheduled Castes was 2% and is not quite relevant in these petitions. The Government of Manipur had also issued another Office Memorandum dated 6th April, 1974 (Annexure-A/2) which prescribed 100 points model roster for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Bribes. The points to be reserved for Scheduled Tribes were 1,7,8,10,13,16,19,22,25, 28, 31, 34, 37, 40, 43, 46, 49, 52, 56, 58, 61, 64 and so on. The Government of Manipur had also issued another Office Memorandum dated 6th April, 1974 (Annexure-A/2) which prescribed 100 points model roster for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Bribes. The points to be reserved for Scheduled Tribes were 1,7,8,10,13,16,19,22,25, 28, 31, 34, 37, 40, 43, 46, 49, 52, 56, 58, 61, 64 and so on. It may also be noted the Manipur Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe) Act, 1976, hereinafter referred as the Act was made which provided in its section 4 that except as otherwise provided in the Act, the vacancies reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the .Scheduled Tribes shall not be filled up by candidates not belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Section 5 provides roster for vacancies. Section 6 provides for exchange or reservation between communities, i. e. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Sect-on 7 provides for de-reservation of vacancies which leads : "If, in any recruitment year, the number of candidates either from Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes is less than the number of vacancies reserved for them even after exchange of reservation between the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the remaining vacancies may be filled up by general candidates after de-reserving the vacancies in the prescribed manner, but the vacancies so de-reserved may be carried forward to subsequent three years of recruitment s Provided that such carry forward should also be permitted in respect of vacancies so de-reserved in proceeding three years prior to enforcement of this Act: Provided further that in the years following the recruitment years t e normal reserved vacancies together with the vacancies carried forward shall not exceed fifty percent of the total number of vacancies of the year in which recruitment is made and the excess over fifty percent of reserved vacancies shall be carried forward to subsequent years of recruitment." It appears that the Rules under the Act have not yet been promulgated even though the same were published in the official Gazette inviting objections. However, we think t: at it should not make any difference to the conten­tion raised for the petitioner that the 100 point model roster prescribed by the Government should h ve been followed and that there has been violation of law which has resulted in deprivation of right to the petitioner in Civil Rule No. 399 of 1990. However, we think t: at it should not make any difference to the conten­tion raised for the petitioner that the 100 point model roster prescribed by the Government should h ve been followed and that there has been violation of law which has resulted in deprivation of right to the petitioner in Civil Rule No. 399 of 1990. It may be noted that under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of Indiana provision for reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens could have been made by the State aid the said provision does not require that it could be done only by a law, i. e. such a reservation could be provided for by an order of the Government. In the present case, Annexure-A/1 the Office Memorandum dated 16th February, 1974 read with Office Memorandum dated 6th April, 1974 (Annexure-A/2) clearly provided for reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and also provided a model 100 point roster and as such in case there has been any infringement of the provisions of the aforesaid Office Memorandum the petitioner has the right to question the action of the Government affecting his right. 11. The petitioner in Civil Rule No. 399 of 1990 has contended that the appointments of Scheduled Tribes candidates has not been done in accordance with the 100 point model roster and carry forward rule, and so also the provision for de-reservation after the fir t three points in the roster for Scheduled Tribes, i. e. I, 7 and 8 had been filled up. The next roster point No. 10 for Scheduled Tribe was not filled in the year 1980 and against that roster point a general candidate had been appointed. However in the year 1981 Mr. Mangpi, a Scheduled Tribe, was appointed, but he should have been appointed against the roster point No. 10 in accordance with the principle of carry forward. Thereafter, Mr.R. Keishing, a Scheduled Tribe, was appointed in the year 1988. Considering that only one person each has been appointed in 1982, 1986, 1987 there was again violation of the principle of carry forward because Mr. R. Keishing should have been appointed against the roster point No. 13 and the subsequent appointment in 1989 of Ms. Kim, a Scheduled Tribe) should have been against roster point No. 16 and not 22 as has been contended by the respondents. 12. R. Keishing should have been appointed against the roster point No. 13 and the subsequent appointment in 1989 of Ms. Kim, a Scheduled Tribe) should have been against roster point No. 16 and not 22 as has been contended by the respondents. 12. Sri Shyamkishore Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate has emphasised that ii, the year 1988 there were two vacancies and requisi­tion dated 28.6.88 (Annex jre-D/1) was sent for one post (at roster point No. 2i) to the High Court and at roster point No. 22 for Scheduled Tribe to the Commission, and on the recommendation of the Commission M-i. Kim a ST was appointed. There was delay in the recommendation by the High Court and in the meanwhile some vacancies bad occurred. So when the High Court recommended by letter dated 19.10.1989 Sri S. Imocha Singh and Kn. S, fara Devi had been appointed to the vacancies at roster point No. 21 and 23 in the year 1990. Sri Shyamkishore Singh, learned Additional Govt., Advocate has contended that there has been no infringement of the provision for reservation. 13. We have given our most anxious consideration to the submissions for the parties. We are unable to accept the submission for the respondent Government. It may be noted that the respondents have also produced the roster maintained by them, a photo copy of which has been placed on record, which also substantially snows that in the year 1980 when possibly no S.T. was available, the roster point vacancy against, No. 10 reserved for Scheduled Tribe should have been carried forward to the year 1981 and Mr. Mangoi, a S.T., should have been appointed against the roster vacancy at point Mo. 10. The roster point No.13 and 16 should have been carried forward or de reserved according to the provisions, but the learned Additional Government Advocate has not produced any material to show that the procedure for de-reservation was followed. It was only in this year 198S Mr. R. Ketsning, a Scheduled Tribe, was appointed and if the carry forward principle was followed he should have been appointed against roster point No. 13 and naturally, therefore, in the year 1989 Ms. Kim, a S.T., should have been appointed against roster point No. 16. It was only in this year 198S Mr. R. Ketsning, a Scheduled Tribe, was appointed and if the carry forward principle was followed he should have been appointed against roster point No. 13 and naturally, therefore, in the year 1989 Ms. Kim, a S.T., should have been appointed against roster point No. 16. In any case, the aforesaid two Scheduled Tribe candidates appointed in 19»8 and 19S9 could be considered as Laving been appointed against the roster point No. 16 and 19 and not against roster point No. 19 and 22. We are, therefore, satisfied that the petitioner in Civil Rule No.399 of 1990 has clearly made out a case of non-observance of the provisions for reservation and accordingly he has a legitimate right to question the action of the Government in that regard and claim appointment to the Service. 14. Sri N. Kxneshwar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has very rarely not submitted that the appointment of any general candidate should be cancelled, but tie has submitted that the right of the petitioner which was denied to him should be allowed. 15. Sri N.Surjamoni Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.4, has submitted that no candidate who has been appointed to the Service should suffer for no fault of the candidate and what has been settled earlier should not now be unsettled. We are inclined to agree with the learned counsel. The mistake appears to have happened for want of adequate care in .the application of the principles of carry forward and the procedure for de-reservation of posts. We, therefore, think that it shall not be just and proper to unsettle appointments made earlier, i.e. that no candidate who already been appointed should be upset because of an order this Court ay make. 16. Sri Shyamkishore Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate has strenuously submitted that the letter dated 2.1.1990 (Annexure A/1 in Civil Rule No. 533 of 1990) which the Minister in charge had written to the High Court was not an official letter and that action had been taken by the Minister without consultation with the Law Department of the Government. We have perused the letter which was produced before us and also the records. We are unable to accept the submission for the respondent Government. We have perused the letter which was produced before us and also the records. We are unable to accept the submission for the respondent Government. The Minister-in-charge had written the D.O. letter to the Registrar of the High Court and in response the Registrar by letter dated 19.1.90 (Annexure-A/2 in C.R. 533 of 19 0) had recomm­ended the names of the petitioners in these Civil Rules. It appears that the petitioners had obtained third and fourth rank in order of merit at the selection made by the High Court. We cannot, therefore, accept that the letter from the Minister-in-charge was an un-official letter. Even assuming that the Minister-in charge had written the letter without consul­tation with the Law Department, in our opinion, it made no difference because the absence of consultation with the Law Department by the Minister-in-charge cannot in any manner materially affect the recommend­ation made by the High Court in response to the letter by the Minister-in-charge. The High Court had recommended the petitioners for appointment against the two vacancies which undoubtedly had come into existence. The Minister-in-charge had recorded the reasons and also suggested that one of the vacancies should go to the Scheduled Tribe candidate, i.e. the petitioner in Civil Rule No.399 of 1990. 17. Sri S.Jayanta, learned counsel for the petitioner in Civil Rule N'i.53.3 of i 990, has cited P.Prakash vs. Union of India, 1984 (Supp) 3CC 687 where it was held that once a person has been declared successful according to the merit list of selected candidates, the appointing authority has the responsibility to appoint him, even if the number of vacancies undergoes a change after his name is included in the list of selected candid­ates. In Smti. Sumila Bora vs. The State of Assam, (1989) 1 GLR 471 it was held that "the persons finding place in the select list acquired right to be appointed and to deny them appointment would amount to denial of justice In S. Govinda Raju vs. Karnataka, (1986) 3 SCC 273 , it was held that "once a candidate is selected and his name is included in the select list for appoint­ment in accordance with the Regulations, he gets a right to be considered for appointment as and when vacancy arises." 18. Sri Siyamkishore Singh, 1-arned, Additional Government Advocate has submitted that just because the High Court had made the recommendations, it was not obligatory on the part of the Government to make appo­intment, more so when the" Government in accordance with Rule 6 (1) (a)(b) of the Rules, felt that for the other vacancies the recommendation from the Commission should be obtained as had also been suggested by the High Court in its letter dated 19.10.89 (Annexure D/2). 19. On careful consideration, we are unable to accept the submission on behalf of the respondent Government. While it is true that the High Court had not declared any result, we are inclined to think that the cases of the petitioners were on much stronger basis because at the request of the Minister-in-charge in the Government their names had been recommended by the High Court for appointment. The non-publication of the result by the High Court, therefore, was, in our opinion hardly of any consequence. As regards the submission that for the remaining post, reco­mmendation from the Commission was required, we think that the Govern­ment was not quite justified in taking the stand, because even earlier as shown before the said rule had not been adhered to and moreover it was the Minister-in-charge who had requested for recommendation of the names from the High Court and in response the High Court had made the recommendation for appointment of the petitioners to the existing vacancies. We, therefore, think that both the petitioners had acquired right to obtain appointment and the petitioner in Civil Rule No. 99 of 1990 in addition has justifiable claim on the basis of denial of right due to infringement of the provision for reservation of posts for Scheduled Tribes. 20. However, in the meanwhile the Commission has conducted examination and has also recommended two candidates for appointment including one belonging to Scheduled Tribes. We had enquired from the learned Additional Government Advocate about the number of existing vacancies in the Service. It was submitted that there was one more vacancy which has resulted due to promotion of an officer from Grade-III to Grade-II. 21. Sri N.Surjamani Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submitted that there was a post of Administrative Officer in Grade III of the Service which also had not been filled. It was submitted that there was one more vacancy which has resulted due to promotion of an officer from Grade-III to Grade-II. 21. Sri N.Surjamani Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submitted that there was a post of Administrative Officer in Grade III of the Service which also had not been filled. The learned Additional Government Advocate was, however, not clear about the same, but submitted that the post was not available. The two petitioners require to be appointed to the Service besides the two parsons recommended by the Commission. The persons recommended by the Commission on the same principles referred above have acquired right to obtain appointment. Admittedly there are three vacancies. We have already said that we do not consider it just and proper to unsettle the persons who have already been appointed. We, therefore, think that against the existing three vacancies, the present petitioners and the first candidate selected by the Commission should be appointed and in any other vacancy in service which may exist or may come into existence hereafter the other candidates selected by the Commission should be appointed. We may note here that when the Commission was to hold the examination and these petitions were filed, this Court had made interim order in each Civil Rule that the State Government shall not make any appointment without taking prior permission from this Court and subsequently it was directed in each petition that one post shall not be filled un until further orders of this Court. We, therefore, think that in order to do justice to all the affected persons, the petitioners, should be appointed against the first two vacancies which now exist and against the third vacancy the first candidate in the recommendation of the Commission should be appointed and the other candidate recommended by the Commission should be appointed in any other vacancy which may exist in Service now or which may occur in future. We order accordingly. 22. Petitions allowed. Parties shall bear their own costs.