(1) THE appellant is a Released Emergency Commissioned Officer. He was appointed as a Deputy Collector in the Maharashtra Civil Service by way of direct recruitment against the vacancy reserved for the Released Emergency Commissioned Officers. He represented before the State government against the seniority position assigned to him in the service but the same was rejected in the year 1985. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition before the Bombay High court seeking various reliefs. The writ petition was dismissed. These appeals by way of special leave are against the judgment of the High court. (2) THE State government by an order dated 3/3/1963 reserved 50 per cent of the substantive vacancies, in all the cadres, occurring after 28/10/1962, for the Emergency Commissioned Officers. The appellant sat for the examination held in June 1969 for selection to the three reserved posts of Deputy Collectors. The result was declared on 5/2/1970. Seventeen candidates, including the appellant, were selected. The appellant was placed at serial No. 10 in the merit list. The first vacancy was filled on 11/8/1970 and the second on 9/8/1971. Mr Prohit, the second appointee was at serial No. 5 of the merit list. The third vacancy remained unfilled and was dereserved. Meanwhile, on 11/8/1970, four more posts of Deputy Collectors, to be filled from amongst the Emergency Commissioned Officers, were advertised. The appellant applied and sat in the examination. The result was declared on 4/8/1971. The appellant was again selected and placed at serial No. 4 of the merit list. As a result of the second selection he was appointed as Deputy Collector on 23/2/1972. (3) THE second vacancy relating to first selection was filled as late as on 9/8/1971. We fail to understand why the third vacancy was not filled at that point of time. There was no justification for dereserving the same, especially when the second vacancy relating to first selection was filled at the time when the second selection was almost complete. (4) BEFORE the High court the appellant raised three points. The first contention was that there were 69 reserved vacancies in the quota of Emergency Commissioned Officers, which the State government was bound to fill. The High court, however, found that there were only 11 vacancies and we see no ground to interfere with the said finding. (4) BEFORE the High court the appellant raised three points. The first contention was that there were 69 reserved vacancies in the quota of Emergency Commissioned Officers, which the State government was bound to fill. The High court, however, found that there were only 11 vacancies and we see no ground to interfere with the said finding. The second contention raised before the High court was that on the interpretation of Rules 3 and 6 of the Maharashtra Released Defence Personnel (Fixation of Pay and Seniority) Rules, 1974, the appellant was entitled to higher seniority. The High court rejected the contention and we agree with the conclusions reached by the High court on the point. (5) IT was then contended that the appellant was at No. 10 in the merit list prepared as a result of the first selection and at serial No. 4 in the second selection. According to the learned counsel before offering the appellant the appointment as a result of second selection he should have been considered against the third vacancy which was lying vacant and was not filled by the State government. We see considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel. As stated above the .second vacancy relating to the first selection was filled as late as 9/8/1971 by offering the same to Mr Prohit who was at serial No. 5 in the merit list. We see no justification on the part of the State government in not filling the third vacancy from amongst the candidates who were at serial Nos. 6 to 17 of the said merit list. The learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra states that the third vacancy was offered to the candidate at No. 6 of the list but he declined. Thereafter the vacancy was dereserved due to lapse of three years period. We are not impressed with the argument. Learned counsel has not been able to show as to under what rule/instructions the third vacancy was dereserved especially when the second vacancy was filled as late as 9/8/1971. Appellant was at No. 10 of the first merit list. Candidates who were at serial Nos. 7, 8 and 9 of the first merit list are not before us. They neither sat in the second examination nor claimed the third vacancy before the State government or in any other proceedings. Appellant was at No. 10 of the first merit list. Candidates who were at serial Nos. 7, 8 and 9 of the first merit list are not before us. They neither sat in the second examination nor claimed the third vacancy before the State government or in any other proceedings. We are, therefore, of the view that the appellant was entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of Deputy Collector in the third vacancy out of the merit list prepared as a result of the first selection. (6) WE allow the appeals, set aside the judgment of the High court and direct the respondents to consider the appellant for appointment as Deputy Collector against the third vacancy meant to be filled out of the merit list prepared as a result of the first selection. He shall be given his proper seniority below Mr Prohit in accordance with the rules. No costs.