JUDGMENT B.P. Singh, J. These writ applications involve a common issue, and were therefore heard together. The representative facts are taken from C.W.J.C. No. 3958 of 1991. 2. The petitioners, who belong to the most backward class and are graduates in Engineering have impugned Annexures 8,9,11 and 12 and have prayed that before filling up 100 posts of Assistant Engineer reserved for most backward class, the respondents should be directed to issue an advertisement to ascertain whether qualified candidates belonging to the most backward class are available for appointment against those posts. This the petitioners have claimed on the basis of carry forward rule, since they have contended that the recruitment was made only in two recruitment years and, therefore, by application of the carry-forward rule a third advertisement must be published inviting applications from most backward class before it can be said that candidates from most backward class are not available for appointment and hence those posts must be filled up by candidates belonging to backward class. It may be mentioned at this stage that the Government has reserved twenty percent posts for other backward classes which includes eight percent posts for backward class and twelve percent posts for most backward class. 3. It is not in dispute that the Road Construction Department of the Government of Bihar, being the nodal department .for appointment of Assistant Engineers, sent a requisition to' the. Bihar Public Service Commission for making its recommendation for appointment to the vacant posts of Assistant Engineer. Consequently, the Commission issued Advertisement No. 93 of 1985 inviting applications from candidates having the requisite qualification for appointment to the posts of Assistant Engineer in different Works Department of the Government of Bihar. While the petitioners contend that Advertisement No. 93 of 1985 issued by the Commission invited applications only from candidates belonging to the general category, the case of the respondents is that applications were invited from all categories' of candidates, and pursuant to the Advertisement posts were filled up not only by appointment' of candidates from general category, but also by appointment of candidates belonging to backward class and most backward class. It is not necessary to go into this controversy, because even the petitioners concede that pursuant to the Advertisement No. 93 of 1985, 53 candidates belonging to the most backward class were selected by the Commission and recommended for appointment under letter no. It is not necessary to go into this controversy, because even the petitioners concede that pursuant to the Advertisement No. 93 of 1985, 53 candidates belonging to the most backward class were selected by the Commission and recommended for appointment under letter no. 119 issued on 19-5-1987. I shall, therefore, proceed on the basis that Advertisement No. 93 of 1985 published by the Commission invited applications not only from candidates belonging to the general category but also from candidates belonging to the reserved category. It is again not in dispute that all the vacant posts could not be filled up and, therefore, the Commission issued another Advertisement no. 53 of 1988. Admittedly, 382 posts were reserved for different categories, out of which 179 posts were reserved for most backward class. It is also not disputed that pursuant to Advertisement no. 53 of 1988 the Commission recommended for appointment the names of 79 candidates belonging to the most backward class under their letter no. 454 dated 12-12-1988, who were subsequently appointed. As a result 100 posts reserved for the most backward class remained vacant despite the appointments made pursuant to Advertisement no. 53 of. 1988. It appears that thereafter no further advertisement has been issued for filling up those 100 posts reserved for most backward class. 4. The petitioners contend that they made several representations calling upon the respondents to fill up the posts reserved for most backward class, but the respondents did not concede their requests and on the contrary adopted an illegal procedure by attempting to fill up those posts by appointing candidates belonging to backward class category. It is not disputed before me that under the rules and Circulars, in case candidates belonging to most backward class are not available for filling up the posts reserved for them, after carrying forward the vacancies for three recruitment years, those vacancies may be filled up by appointment of candidates belonging to backward class. 5. From Annexure-8, which is a letter written by the Joint Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar (respondent no. 4) to the Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, it appears that the Commission was requested to revalidate Advertisement no. 5. From Annexure-8, which is a letter written by the Joint Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar (respondent no. 4) to the Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, it appears that the Commission was requested to revalidate Advertisement no. 53 of 1988, and to recommend candidates belonging to the backward class for appointment against 100 posts which had been reserved for the most backward class and which could not be filled up because sufficient number of candidates belonging to the most backward class were not available for appointment. In reply to Annexure-8, Bihar Public Service Commission vide Annexure-9 dated 27-3-1991 recommended for appointment the names of 100 candidates belonging to the backward class. It appears that after the recommendation of the Commission (Annexure-9) the Association of Engineers belonging to most backward class made a representation, and the Commission changed its mind. Relying upon the Reservation Resolution no. 756 dated 10-11-1978 the Commission took the view that since the posts were advertised only twice-vide Advertisement nos. 93 of 1985 and 53 of 1988, the posts reserved for most backward class category could not be dereserved in favour of backward class category unless the posts were advertised once more so as to comply with the resolution of the Government. In this view of the matter, the Commission withdrew its recommendation and requested the Government not to make any appointment on the basis of its recommendation. Thereafter, by Annexure-11 the Secretary in the Department of Road Construction wrote another letter to the Commission on 22-4-1991 in which it was explained that the carry-forward rule had been complied with, inasmuch-as on the basis of the recommendation made by the Commission appointments had been made in the years 1987, 1988 and 1989. The Commission was, therefore, again requested to revalidate its recommendation made on 27th March, 1991, so that further action may be taken. It appears that the Commission once again changed its opinion and by Annexure-12 dated 25th April, 1991 it revalidated its recommendation dated 27-3-1991 agreeing with the view that since appointments were made in three years, it was not necessary to issue a third advertisement. These annexures 8,9,11 and 12 have been challenged by the petitioners. 6. From the facts noticed above, which are not in dispute, it is apparent that Advertisement no. These annexures 8,9,11 and 12 have been challenged by the petitioners. 6. From the facts noticed above, which are not in dispute, it is apparent that Advertisement no. 93 of 1985 was issued by the Commission for filling up the posts of Assistant Engineer, and pursuant to that advertisement 53 candidates belonging to the most backward class category were appointed. Since 179 posts reserved for most backward category remained to be filled up, another Advertisement no. 53 of 1988 was issued pursuant to which 79 posts reserved for the most backward class category were filled up. However, 100 vacancies reserved for most backward class still remained to be filled up. It is not in dispute that only two advertisements were issued one in the year 1985 and the other in the year 1988. On these facts the petitioners contend that the decision of the respondents to fill up those 100 vacancies by appointing candidates belonging to the backward class on the basis of Advertisement no. 53 of 1988 is illegal and in breach of the carry-forward rule. On the other hand, the respondents contend that though only two advertisements were issued, since appointments were actually made in three years, namely, 1987, 1988 and 1989, the carry-forward rule had been strictly adhered to. 7. The petitioners have placed reliance upon the Resolution of the Government of Bihar dated 10-11-1978 (Anncxure-3) which provides for reservation of eight percent posts for backward class and twelve percent posts for most backward class. It further provides that posts reserved for -most backward class shall be carried forward for three years and if eligible candidates from that category are not available, candidates belonging to the backward class may be appointed against those posts. The procedure with regard to the recruitment shall be the same as applicable to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Reliance was also placed upon the Resolution of the Government dated 21-11-1990 (Annexure-4) wherein the same policy was reiterated when the reservation was extended to the divisional level. Paragraph no. 8 of the Resolution provides that in the case of most backward class the vacancies shall be carried forward for three recruitment years. Reliance is placed on the letter dated 19th July, 1985, issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar,• containing detailed directions with regard to roster clearance. Paragraph no. Paragraph no. 8 of the Resolution provides that in the case of most backward class the vacancies shall be carried forward for three recruitment years. Reliance is placed on the letter dated 19th July, 1985, issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar,• containing detailed directions with regard to roster clearance. Paragraph no. 8 of the directions provides that in column 2 of the roster form the year of recruitment shall be mentioned. By way of illustration it has been mentioned that if recruitments are made even two to four years after the initial recruitment year, that shall be considered to be a second recruitment year. 8. Since the facts of the case are not in dispute, the only question which arises for consideration is whether the respondents have correctly followed the carry-forward rule. The major point of controversy is with regard to the meaning to be attached to the term 'recruitment year. 9. It would be difficult to equate 'recruitment year' with a 'calendar year', because in that event it was not necessary to use the term 'recruitment year' while dealing with provisions relating to the reservation and carry-forward of vacancies in reserved quota. The purpose of reservation is to ensure representation to a particular category in public services to the extent determined by the Government from time to time. It may well be that pursuant to an advertisement and selection sufficient number of candidates belonging to a particular reserved category may not be found eligible or suitable for appointment. In such a case, if the vacancies are filled up by others, it may cause great injustice to that particular reserved category for which the posts were reserved. It was with a view to achieve 'the objective of adequate representation in public services that the carry forward rule was evolved so that as and when candidates from the particular reserve category were available for appointment, those vacancies could be filled up. An indefinite carry - forward rule appeared to be impractical and unfair and, therefore, it was held by the Supreme Court that the carry-forward rule could not be operated for more than three years. If eligible candidates were, not found despite the carry forward of vacancies for three recruitment years, the vacancies should not be carried forward any further and the posts must be dereserved. If eligible candidates were, not found despite the carry forward of vacancies for three recruitment years, the vacancies should not be carried forward any further and the posts must be dereserved. The term 'recruitment year' is of considerable significance having regard to the objective sought to be achieved. When an advertisement is issued by the Commission inviting applications from candidates, including candidates belonging to reserved category, an opportunity is given to all eligible candidates to apply for recruitment. Where the vacancies are filled up pursuant to the advertisement in the same year, no difficulty arises. It may well be that all the vacancies are filled up pursuant to one advertisement, but the process of appointment may take more than a year, sometimes two or three years. This is because very often some of the candidates who are offered appointment, fail to join for various reasons. This necessitates issuance of fresh offer of appointment to candidates lower down in the list. The process is time-consuming and it is, therefore, possible that it may extend over two or three years. There may, however, be cases where vacancies reserved for a particular category may not be tilled• up on the basis of one advertisement, because sufficient number of eligible candidates belonging to that category are not found suitable for appointment. In such cases in order to fill up the remaining vacancies another advertisement may have to be issued. If pursuant to the second advertisement as well as vacancies arc not filled up, a third advertisement may have to be issued for filling up those posts. If despite the issuance of third advertisement, the posts still remain vacant for want of suitable candidates belonging to that category, the posts must be dereserved or be, filled up by candidates belonging to another reserved category, if the rules so permit. As clarified in Annexure-5 dated 19-7-1985 the recruitment year may extend over two to four calendar years. 10. The purpose of the carry-forward rule being to secure a certain percentage of posts for candidates belonging to reserve categories the purpose will be defeated if it is held that what is determinative is the number of years in which appointments arc made. 10. The purpose of the carry-forward rule being to secure a certain percentage of posts for candidates belonging to reserve categories the purpose will be defeated if it is held that what is determinative is the number of years in which appointments arc made. If 100 posts reserved for category 'X' are advertised in the year 1990, the appointments arc made on the basis of the recommendation by the Commission in the years 1990, 1991 and 1992 on the basis of the same advertisement, it cannot be said that the Vacancies have been carried forward for three years. The purpose of carry forward rule is to give opportunity to persons belonging to a particular reserve category to apply in two subsequent recruitment years, if in the first recruitment year sufficient number of candidates are not found eligible and suitable for appointment. Once an advertisement is issued and the recruitment process begins, only those persons can be considered for appointment who have applied in response to the advertisement. Others, who had not applied, and who may have acquired the qualification or eligibility later, cannot be considered for appointment pursuant to the advertisement already issued. It is for the benefit of such persons belonging to reserved category that, the vacancies are carried forward so that eligible and qualified persons may have an opportunity to apply for appointment against the reserved posts. The carry-forward rule has, therefore, a nexus with the number of opportunities offered to the candidates belonging to the reserved category. It envisages that three such opportunities must be given. If regular advertisements are issued each year, the carry forward rule will exhaust itself after three years. However, that will not be the case if advertisements are not issued each year, but are issued after intervals of two or three years or more. In such a case those candidates belonging to reserved category, who were left out when the first advertisement was issued, can get an opportunity of applying for appointment against the reserved posts only when the posts are again advertised following the carry forward rule. 11. In my view, therefore, the fact that pursuant to an advertisement appointments were made in three calendar years does not mean that the vacancies have been carried forward for three recruitment years. 11. In my view, therefore, the fact that pursuant to an advertisement appointments were made in three calendar years does not mean that the vacancies have been carried forward for three recruitment years. The carry forward rule implies that in respect of posts reserved for a particular category, candidates belonging to that category must have at least three opportunities of applying against those posts. The posts, which are not filled up on the basis of the first advertisement, must be advertised two more times, so that candidates belonging to the particular reserved category may avail themselves of the opportunities of applying for appointment against the reserved posts. The recruitment year in the context of the carry-forward rule must be understood to mean the year in which the posts were advertised for recruitment. Consequently, the carry-forward implies that the posts/unfilled posts must be advertised thrice in three different calendar years. 12. Applying these principles to the case in hand, I find that the posts were advertised for the first time in the year 1985 by the Commission under Advertisement no. 93 of 1985. Since only 53 posts were filled up pursuant to that Advertisement and as many as 179 posts reserved for most backward class had yet to be filled up, another advertisement was issued in the year 1988 under Advertisement no. 53 of 1988. Even after appointments were made pursuant to Advertisement no. 53 of 1988, 100 posts remained vacant for want of eligible candidates. These posts were, therefore, to be advertised once again to comply with the carry-forward rule so as to ascertain as to whether eligible candidates belonging to most backward class were available for appointment against those posts. That was not done in the instant case, and by Annexure-8 dated 19-2-1991 respondent no. 4 requested the Commission to recommend 100 candidates belonging to backward class for appointment against 100 posts reserved for most backward class. The Commission made its recommendation accordingly by Annexure-9 dated 27-3-1991, which it withdrew vide Annexure-10 dated 4-4-1991. It was again requested by respondent no. 2 to revalidate its recommendation dated 27-3-1991 vide Annexure 11 dated 22-4-1991. The Commission acceded to the request-vide Annexure-12 dated 25-4-1991. In my view, Annexures 8, 9, 11 and 12 arc clearly illegal and in breach of the carry-forward rule. It was again requested by respondent no. 2 to revalidate its recommendation dated 27-3-1991 vide Annexure 11 dated 22-4-1991. The Commission acceded to the request-vide Annexure-12 dated 25-4-1991. In my view, Annexures 8, 9, 11 and 12 arc clearly illegal and in breach of the carry-forward rule. Candidates belonging to the most backward class must have at least one more opportunity of applying for appointment against 100 posts reserved for it which had remained untilled. 13. These writ applications are, therefore, allowed, and Annexures 8, 9, 11 and 12 in C.W.J.C. No. 3958 of 1991, and the corresponding annexures in the other writ applications are quashed. The respondents are directed to take steps for advertising 100 posts reserved for most backward class. If despite such advertisement sufficient number of eligible candidates belonging to the most backward class are not found suitable for appointment, then the respondents will be at liberty to appoint candidates from backward class against those posts. In C.W.J.C. No. 3958 of 1991 this Court by order dated 10-6-1991 had directed that any appointment made pursuant to Annexure-12 shall be subject to the result of the writ application. A similar order was made in C.W.J.C. No. 3630 of 1991 vide order dated 23-5-1991. It, therefore, goes without saying that if appointments have been made during the pendency of these writ applications pursuant to Annexure- 12, the persons so appointed must make way for persons belonging to most backward class, who may be duly selected for appointment after the posts are re-advertised. I direct the respondents to re-advertise the posts within three months from the date on which a copy of this judgment and order is produced before or communicated in due course to respondent no.2, namely, Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Public Works Department (Roads). The petitioners will be entitled to costs which is quantified as Rs. 500/- (five hundred) in each of the writ applications.