JUDGMENT 1. - All these above three Special Appeals are directed against the decision dated May 21, 1992 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2141/1992 Umesh Kumar Sharma and others v. Rajasthan High Court and others. 2. Appeal No. 389/1992 is preferred by the State of Rajasthan, Appeal No. 491/1992 is preferred by the Rajasthan High Court and Appeal No. 611/1993 is preferred by four persons who were not parties to the petition before the learned single judge but have claimed to be aggrieved by the said decision. 3. Since all these three appeals are against the same order, they were heard together and are being disposed of together by a common judgment. 4. The original petitioners before the learned single judge and the appellants in Special Appeal No. 611/1993 are members of the Rajasthan Judicial Service (for short 'the R.J.S.' hereinafter). Their recruitment and promotions are governed by the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955 (for short 'the Rules' hereinafter). 5. The question raised in the petition is as to the interpretation of the provisions of Schedule-II, appended to the R.J.S. Rules. The Schedule provided for reservation of posts in favour of members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Rules provide for recruitment to be continued till the ultimate percentage of reservation fixed by the Government was reached. The Schedule also provides that in the event of non-availability of a sufficient number of candidates amongst Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in a particular year, vacancies were not to be kept idle but were to be filled in accordance with the normal procedure, but such shortfall had to be carried forward and filled up in the subsequent years subject to a maximum period of carry-forward of two years. However, proviso to Clause (7) (4) of the Schedule clearly states that there shall be no carry-forward of the vacancies in the posts or class/category/group of posts in any cadre of service to which promotions are made on the basis of merit alone under the Rules. 6. It was contended on behalf of the original petitioners before the learned Single Judge that in view of the aforesaid proviso there could be no carry forward of the short-fall in the quota of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 6. It was contended on behalf of the original petitioners before the learned Single Judge that in view of the aforesaid proviso there could be no carry forward of the short-fall in the quota of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It was further contended that vacancies created by officiating promotions of R.J.S. Officers belonging to the reserved quota to the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service are also being treated as vacancies in the R.J.S. reserved quota and recruitment is being made on that basis. According to the original petitioners, the Officers not confirmed in the R.H.J.S. remain substantively in the R.J.S. and therefore vacancies cannot be reckoned on the basis of their officiating promotion to the R.H.J.S. 7. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties before him held that in view of the clear provisions of the Rules and the Schedule as the vacancies were to be filled in on the basis of merit no carry-forward of the vacancies meant for the candidates of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was possible. The learned single Judge also held that for the purpose of counting of vacancies R.J.S. Officers belonging to reserved quota who were given officiating promotion to the R.H.J.S. but who retained their lien on their posts in the R.J.S. could not be taken as vacancies. The working out of actual number of vacancies in each category was left out by the learned single Judge to be determined by the High Court. 8. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties in these three Special Appeals before us, so far as interpretation of Rule regarding carry- forward made by the learned single Judge, we are in perfect agreement with the view taken by him. When the language of the provision is plain and the posts which were to be filled in on merits were specifically excluded from the operation of carry-forward Rule, we do not think any other interpretation is possible. 9. So far as the question of reckoning of vacancies for the purpose of determining posts falling in reserved quota, it appears that some clarification is necessary. The learned single Judge has rightly held that ex-cadre posts also have to be included for computation of the reserved quota as the reservation is to be given on the basis of posts available for being filled in. The learned single Judge has rightly held that ex-cadre posts also have to be included for computation of the reserved quota as the reservation is to be given on the basis of posts available for being filled in. However, the observation of the learned single Judge on the point of reckoning the posts vacated by the R.J.S. officers of reserved quota on being given officiating promotion to the R.H.J.S. needs some clarification. 10. It was contended that as there are R.J.S. Officers belonging to reserved quota officiating in the R.H.J.S., there are officers in R.J.S. cadre belonging to general category also officiating in the R.H.J.S. If while reckoning the vacancies available for being filled in the R.J.S., the posts lying vacant because of officiating promotion of the reserved category officers are to be left out by the same logic the posts lying vacant because of officiating promotion of general category officers to the R.H.J.S. have also to be left out. It appears that the learned single Judge meant the same thing. The upshot of the discussion on this point in the Order of the learned single Judge is that the temporary vacancies by officiating promotion of the R.J.S. Officers to the R.H.J.S. could not be counted as vacancies, for the purpose of determination of total vacancies and the vacancies in the reserved category. It appears that because the question of such vacancies in the reserved quota only was raised, a reference to that particular quota has been made in the order. The principle which applies while reckoning vacancies in the reserved quota would also apply in the case of reckoning vacancies in the general category and therefore, when the total number of vacancies will be determined on a common principle no question of discrimination would arise. In fact when the total number of vacancies are determined on the aforesaid principle the vacancies in reserved and general categories would get automatically determined on that principle. After all the proportion of reservation is to be maintained in relation to number of vacancies which exist as per rules and not in relation to number of vacancies which in fact exist because of officiating promotions. Any other interpretation would lead to absurd situation where proportion of reservation would exceed the limits or would go down depending on how many officiating officers revert back to their substantive posts in R.J.S. 11. Any other interpretation would lead to absurd situation where proportion of reservation would exceed the limits or would go down depending on how many officiating officers revert back to their substantive posts in R.J.S. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dispose of the appeals maintaining the decision of the learned single Judge with the aforesaid clarification. There shall be no order as to costs.Appeals dismissed. *******