Judgment N. Pandey, S. K. Singh, JJ. 1. Petitioner is a lecturer in the department of Sociology, Government Womens College, Gardanibagh, having been appointed temporarily until further orders at the rate of Rs.25/-per lecture, subject to maximum of Rs, 1250/-. 2. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to regularise her against the post in question, as she has been working continuously since 5-9-1989 as also possesses requisite qualifications. In the alternative, prayer is for quashing advertisement No.9 of 1993, issued by respondent No.4, inviting applications for appointment against different posts of Lecturers, including the post in question. 3. It appears from the stand of the respondents, in their counter affidavit, prior to appointment of the petitioner, neither the approval of the commission was obtained nor other prescribed procedures in making such appointments, were followed. The nature of appointment, as it appears from Annexure 1, which is a letter of appointment, is purely temporary with a condition that it can be terminated without any notice. In that view of the matter, although the petitioner possessed requisite qualifications as also has acquired sufficient experience and working contineously for more than three years, it is difficult for us to issue a writ, commanding the respondents to regularise her against the post in question, The petitioner has claimed that her representations are pending before the appropriate authority of the state Government, therefore, it is always open to the State authorities to consider her case in accordance with law. 4. Now we shall proceed to consider the alternative prayer of the petitioner for quashing the advertisement on a ground that the State government cannot reserve more than 50 percent of posts for appointment of the candidates, belonging to the reserved category. From the advertisement, it appears several posts of Lecturers in different subjects were advertised. We are concerned with the advertisement No.9 of 1993, by which three posts of Lecturers in Sociology were advertised, out of which two posts have been kept reserved and only one is left for general category. Argument, thus, has been advanced that in view of decisions of the Supreme Court as also of this Court in the cases of Indra Sawhney etc. etc. V/s. Union of India and others etc. etc. Argument, thus, has been advanced that in view of decisions of the Supreme Court as also of this Court in the cases of Indra Sawhney etc. etc. V/s. Union of India and others etc. etc. , AIR 1993 SC 477 , Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 298 , and a Bench decision of this court in the case of Lalit Kumar and others V/s. State of Bihar and others.1992 (2) PLJR, 781. It has to be held that advertisement, keeping more than 50 percent posts reserved, is totally arbitrary, illegal and thus, violative of provisions of article 16 (i) of the Constitution of India. 5. From a bare perusal of the advertisement, it is apparent that out of three posts of sociology, two has been kept reserved. 6. In the counter affidavit, which has been filed, disputing the claim of the petitioner, it is stated that by the advertisement, total 14 posts of lecturers in different subjections have been advertised. Out of these total numbers only seven have been kept reserved. Therefore, it was urged a that the grievance of the petitioner that more than 50 percent posts were reserved for appointment of Lecturers in Sociology has no substance. 7. A question, thus, arises whether reservation can be fixed against all the vacancies in different subjects, taken together, or it can be vacancy wise in different subjects. From bare perusal of the advertisement, it would appear that the vacancies have been notified separately. Such as, vacancies with respect to other subjects are numbered as Advertisement Nos.5 of 1993, 7 of 1993 and 10 of 1993 whereas, the vacancy in question has been numbered as Advertisement No.9 of 1993. Therefore, it can not be said since in one notice all the vacancies have been notified, therefore, there was only one advertisement. Apart from the aforesaid, if the contention of the learned counsel for the State is accepted then out of 14 posts in different subjects, even cent percent reservation can be made in a particular subject on a plea that such appointment will not exceed 50 percent of total vacancies. 8. There is no dispute that candidates, belonging to reserved category, at a stage of initial appointment or at the stage of promotion are entitled for preferential treatments. This is not because a concession or privilege is extended to them. 8. There is no dispute that candidates, belonging to reserved category, at a stage of initial appointment or at the stage of promotion are entitled for preferential treatments. This is not because a concession or privilege is extended to them. In fact it is in recognition of their undisputed fundamental right. Every lawful method is permissible to secure due representative of the candidates, belonging to reserved category. But it cannot be undermined that guarantee contained in Article 16 (1) of the Constitution is to ensure equal opportunity to all citizen in the matter relating to employment. In this regard, it would be appropriate to quote a relevant passage from Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Supra) : "it seems to me that apart from the impact that an excessive reservation in a particular community of Citizens, there is the further far reaching significance this assumes in the context of article 335. the maintenance of efficiency of administration is bound to be adversely affected if general candidates of high merit are corresponding excluded from recruitment because the large bulk of the vacancies, numbering anything over 50% is allotted to be reserved quota. In view of a maximum age limit inveriably prescribed, some of such meritorious candidates may be lost to the service altogether. Viewed in that light, a maximum of 50% for reserved quotas in their totality is a rule which appears fair and reasonable, just and equitable, and violation of which would contravene Article 335. " It is, thus, apparent that total reservation on a particular occasion against a particular post cannot exceed 50 percent of the total vacancies. The same view was approved by the Supreme Court in the case of Indra sawhney etc. etc. V/s. Union of India and others etc. etc. (Super ). 9 It cannot be ignored that in the case of Indra Sawhney etc. etc. V/s. Union of India and others etc. etc. (supra) the Supreme Court was of the opinion that there are certain services like, technical post in research and development organisations, supecialists and super specialists in medicine, engineering and other such courses in physical science and mathematics, in defence services, in the establishment connected therewith, posts of professors in education, Pilots in Indian Air Lines etc. , it may not be advisable to provide reservation. , it may not be advisable to provide reservation. It musts be clearly understood that we have noticed the aforesaid opinion of the Supreme Court to negative the stand of the state that even there can be cent percent reservation against a post of lecturer in a particular subject, if advertisement is at a time for appointment of different posts. It cannot be undermind that a candidate who possesses better academic career and merit shall always be suitable for the post of lecturer or any other post, indicated by the Supreme Court. 10. Having noticed the different decisions of the Supreme Court as also on the basis of foregoing discussions, we hold that the Advertisement no, 9 of 1993 for appointment of the lecturers in Sociology is arbitrary and illegal as it provides more than 50 percent reservation. We further hold that for making appointment in educational institutions, if the vacancies are to be filled up in different subjects, the principle of reservation can be adopted in a particular subject and not against the total vacancies in different subjects. 11. The other contention of the petitioner is that she worked continuously for more than 3-1/2 years under the impression that as per the governments policy she would be regularised. It is apprehended that at the time of direct recruitment, she may be disqualified on the ground of age. It is urged that exactly under similar circumstances other teachers have been regularised but in her case a discriminatory attitude has been adopted by the authorities. Therefore, in that view of the matter, the respondents be maked to give due weightage to the experience of the petitioner while considering her case for appointment. In our view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner deserves such relief. 12. We accordingly, direct that at the, time of regular appointment, if such occasion aries, the appropriate authority of the State Government shall consider her case for relaxation of age and give due weightage of her experience as per the Governments instructions issued from time to time. 13. As we have been informed that the petitioner is still continuing against the post in question, but the respondents are taking steps to appoint another person in a similar manner until regular appointment is made. 13. As we have been informed that the petitioner is still continuing against the post in question, but the respondents are taking steps to appoint another person in a similar manner until regular appointment is made. In our view, if there is no other justiceable reason, the ad hoc or temporary appointee should not be substituted by another ad hoc/temporary appointee. We, accordingly, direct, if the petitioner is not otherwise disqualified, she shall be allowed to continue until a regular appointment is made. 14. In the result, the advertisement No.9 of 1993, so far it provides for more than 50 per cent reservation, is quashed. Respondents would be at liberty either to advertise the post afresh or to issue a corrigendum. 15. In the result, this application is allowed to the extent indicated above. Application allowed.