S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) IN this Special Civil Application, the petitioner prayed for direction to the respondents to appoint him on the post of Peon on any of the vacancies existing or that may fall vacant hereafter in the Vijapur Division of the respondent-Board. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are that in the year 1982, applications were invited by respondent-Board for the post of Peon, for its O and M Division at Vijapur. In response to that advertisement, about 25 persons, including the petitioner, were called for interview by the Selection Committee and ultimately a merit list of eight candidates has been prepared. A copy of the said merit list has been produced on record of this Special Civil application as annexure a. The petitioner has been placed at Sr. No. 5 in the said select list. Pending approval of the competent authority, the petitioner and six others were temporarily appointed as Peons for some time. The Superintending Engineer, later on, did not grant the approval to the select list on the ground that while preparing the select list, the Selection Committee had not followed the principles of Roster system. The selectees at Sr. Nos. 1, 2 and 4 of the said select list therefore challenged that decision of the superintending Engineer before this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 1649 of 1986 and 2344 of 1983. These Special Civil Applications were decided by this Court on 15. 3. 1984. A copy of the judgment of this Court is submitted by petitioner on the record of this Special Civil Application as annexure b. In pursuance of the decision of this court, the selectees at Sr. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 were given appointments as Peons, but the petitioner, who was at Sr. No. 5, was not given the appointment. The petitioner therefore made oral representations to the respondent No. 1 for giving him appointment as a Peon. The petitioner has come up with the case that recently, selectee at Sr. No. 4 has been promoted to the post of Meter Reader and appointed at Ladol and as such, one more post of Peon has also fallen vacant. Similarly, another post of Peon has also fallen vacant due to promotion of one Shri R. C. Gohil who was serving as Peon at Gozaria. No. 4 has been promoted to the post of Meter Reader and appointed at Ladol and as such, one more post of Peon has also fallen vacant. Similarly, another post of Peon has also fallen vacant due to promotion of one Shri R. C. Gohil who was serving as Peon at Gozaria. Third post of peon is also stated to be made available due to transfer of one Shri K. S. Baria from vijapur to Meghraj. The petitioner stated that against any of the three posts of Peons aforesaid, he can be given appointment. ( 3 ) THIS Special Civil Application has been contested by the Board by filing affidavit-in-reply. The Board has come up with the case that the facts stated by the petitioner in Special Civil Application are substantially true. It is stated that a candidate at sr. No. 6 in the select list was given appointment and three other vacancies are also available but these vacancies are only meant for SC/st candidates according to Roster system. The petitioner being a General Category candidate, cannot be appointed to any one of these three posts. Another point has been raised that the select list has currency of only one year and that period has already expired. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent-Board has made hostile discrimination in the matter of appointments on the post of Peon by giving appointment to the candidate who stood at Sr. No. 6 in the said select list ignoring the claim of a candidate who is at Sr. No. 5 It has next been contended that the select list does not come to an end because this Court has decided the Special Civil Application filed by other persons only on 15th March, 1984 and thereafter appointments have been made. When the select list has been acted upon after expiry of period of one year, this point cannot be taken by respondents. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner, though stands at Sr. No. 5 in the merit list, he cannot be given appointment as all the three posts which are available are meant for SC/st candidates. ( 6 ) I have given my thoughtful considerations to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. No. 5 in the merit list, he cannot be given appointment as all the three posts which are available are meant for SC/st candidates. ( 6 ) I have given my thoughtful considerations to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. ( 7 ) FROM the judgment of this Court dated 15th March 1984, it is clear that the candidates at Sr. Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were the petitioners before this Court. The candidate at sr. No. I is SC candidate and at Nos. 2 and 4 and are General Category candidates. The petitioner is also a candidate of General Category. It is not in dispute that after decision of this Court, five appointments from the said select list have been made, i. e. , of the candidates at Sr. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. The candidates at Sr. Nos. 2 and 4 are General category candidates whereas the candidates at Sr. Nos. 1 and 6 in the select list are SC candidates and No. 3 is a candidate belonging to Backward Class. So out of five appointments, two appointments have been made of SC candidates and one of BC candidate. Three other posts were available and in all appointments have to be made against eight posts, but the learned counsel for the respondent-Board has failed to point out that in the presence of these number of candidates of SC, ST and BC, how all the three posts would have been reserved for SC and ST in the ratio of 2:1. The respondent-Board has given absolute vague and indefinite reply. The respondent-Board should have been straightforward and should have given out clearly, the Roster points, which it has not done. Which of the Roster points have to be followed has to be specifically stated by the Board, but that precisely has not been done and it has tried to give out incomplete picture of facts. Out of five appointees, two were of SC category and it is difficult to accept that two other vacancies would have also been reserved for SC candidates. ( 8 ) IN view of these facts, this writ petition is allowed and the respondent-Board is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Peon with reference to his position in the select list at Sr. No. 5. ( 8 ) IN view of these facts, this writ petition is allowed and the respondent-Board is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Peon with reference to his position in the select list at Sr. No. 5. In case still the petitioners claim is not acceptable as per the Roster points, a reasoned order may be passed and a copy of the same may be sent to the petitioner by registered post A. D. Where the Board considers to give appointment to the petitioner, the petitioner shall not be entitled for any backwages, but he shall be entitled for continuity of service, seniority, notional benefits of pay etc. That course has been adopted by this Court earlier also while disposing of the special Civil Application Nos. 1649 of 1986 and 2344 of 1983. The petitioner has also filed an Affidavit before this Court and therein he has stated that in case he is given appointment, he will forego the backwages. This exercise has to be undertaken and completed by the respondent-Board within a period of three months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. In case of difficulty, liberty is granted to the petitioner for revival of this Special Civil Application. Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. .