ORDER (1) This Petition and the Petitions W.P. No. 6076/1998 (Sanjay Kumar Jain v. State of M.P. & ors.), 6008/1998 (Ravishankar Bajpai and am. v. State of M.P. & ors.) and 146/99 (Devendra Kumar Shrivastava v. State of M.P. & ors.) challenge the order dated 1.12.1998 passed by the Collector, District Raisen, as appellate authority under the M.P. Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997, in case No. 51/Appeal/Cole./97-98, by which the Collector has set aside the selection of 28 candidates for the posts of Shiksha Karmis made by the Janpad Panchayat, Silwani, and has directed the said Panchayat to revise the list by excluding the names of these candidates and including the other eligible persons in accordance with the Roster for reservation, with a further direction to include 14 persons as mentioned in his order in the waiting list for being absorbed on posts becoming available. The consequent cancellation of appointments by Janpad Panchayat has also been challenged. All these petitions are, therefore, being decided by this common order. 2. The State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 53, sub-section (1) of section 70 read with sub-section (1) of Section 95 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the "Panchayat Adhiniyam") has made the Rules called the "M.P. Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997". Rule 5 of the said Rules provides for Method of Selection and Recruitment while Rule 8 deals with Promotion. Shiksha Karmis have been classified into three categories, Grade I, II & III as per Schedule I appended to the Rules. Rule 9 provides for the Discipline and Control and lays down that the Shiksha Karmis shall be under the administrative control of Zila Panchayat or Janpad Panchayat, as the case may be, while Rule 10 provides for termination of service by a month's notice by the appointing authority in the case of the Shiksha Karmi who is not in permanent service. Rule 12 provides that Appeal against the order passed under these rules may be made as per provisions of the Adhiniyam. Section 91 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam provides that an appeal or revision against the orders or proceedings of a Panchayat and other authorities under that Act, shall lie to such authority and in such manner as may be prescribed. Section 91 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam provides that an appeal or revision against the orders or proceedings of a Panchayat and other authorities under that Act, shall lie to such authority and in such manner as may be prescribed. The authorities and the manner have been prescribed by the "M.P. Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 and the Collector has been designated as the appellate authority in the case of orders passed by Janpad Panchayat. 3. In accordance with the aforesaid rules, the Respondent-Janpad Panchayat, Silwani, proceeded to make recruitment on the post of Shiksha Karmis and an advertisement was issued by which applications were invited from the eligible candidates. After scrutinising the applications, awarding weightage for the experience and the marks obtained by the candidates in the interview, a final list was prepared and on that basis appointments were issued to the petitioners in pursuance whereof, the petitioners joined at the respective places of their posting, It is alleged that complaints were received from the affected candidates and members of the public pointing out that the selection had been made in violation of the rules and candidates were chosen as per predilection of the members of the Selection Committee' and an enquiry was conducted into the matter. After conclusion of the Enquiry, the complaint was treated as an appeal under the provisions of the M.P. panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995, read with Rule 12 of the Shiksha Karmis Rules and notices were issued to the candidates informing them that in the preliminary enquiry, it was found that Panchayat has not followed the provisions of "M.P. Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargo Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994, as required under Rule 5(4) of the Shiksha Karmis Rules and had, thus, deprived the c1igiale candidates from being selected and calling upon them to show cause as to why the appointment orders issued in favour of the candidates should not be cancelled. In pursuance of the said notice, the candidates appeared through their counsel and thereafter, the said impugned order was passed. 4. The Collector found that 28 candidates as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the impugned order, had obtained less marks than the last candidate eligible for selection as per merit but had still been appointed. In pursuance of the said notice, the candidates appeared through their counsel and thereafter, the said impugned order was passed. 4. The Collector found that 28 candidates as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the impugned order, had obtained less marks than the last candidate eligible for selection as per merit but had still been appointed. The record also indicated that the hundred point roster had not been followed in making reservation in favour of the candidates belonging to scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and O.B.C. as required under Rule 5(4) of the Shiksha Karmis Rules and the select list was prepared separately for different categories with the result, the eligible candidates of the other categories were left out and candidates with lesser marks were appointed. The Collector also observed that in the general category only candidates with 62.42%) or above marks could have been selected while the 28 candidates had obtained marks less than the said percentage of marks. He also prepared a list of 14 candidates to be kept in the waiting list as per the rules, in which the petitioner in WP No. 146/99 has been included at Serial No :) on the basis of 61.12 percent marks obtained by him. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that the provisions of the Reservation Act of 1994 shall not Ipso facto apply and in any case the candidates making a claim for any of the reserved categories could not have been considered for any post under the general category. Rule 5. (2) of the Shiksha Karmis Rules itself requires making of reservation in accordance with the Act No. 21 of 1994 for reservation in favour of the candidates belonging to scheduled castes. scheduled tribes and the other backward classes. Since the Rules under which the recruitment is required to be made, make provision for the applicability of the said Act there is no room for any speculation about applicability of the said Act and the contention deserves to be rejected without any further discussion. The contention that the candidates making a claim against any of the reserved categories can be considered only in the category for which the claim has been made is equally fallacious. The contention that the candidates making a claim against any of the reserved categories can be considered only in the category for which the claim has been made is equally fallacious. The argument proceeds on the assumption that the open seats classified as general category are meant to be filled by persons other than the persons for whom reservation has been made in accordance with M.P. Act No. 21 of 1994. The open seats are for all candidates and if a candidate secures marks enabling him to be selected in the general category, he is entitled' to appointment in that category irrespective of his claim for any other category such as S.C.S.T, or O.B.C. The merit of the candidates cannot therefore be ignored for the purposes of selection in the general category on the ground that he has also a claim in the category for which reservation has been made. In this connection, reference may also be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab (1995 AIR SCW 1371) in which their Lordships have made the following observations in paragraph 4:- "4: When a percentage of reservation is fixed in respect of a particular cadre and the roster indicates the reserve points, it has to be taken that the posts shown at the reserve points are to be filled from amongst the members of reserve categories and the candidates belonging to the general are not entitled to be considered for the reserve posts. On the other hand the reserve category candidates can compete for the non-reserve posts and in the event of their appointment to the said posts their number cannot be added and taken into consideration for working out the percentage of reservation. Art. 16(4) of the Constitution of India permits the State Government to make any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizen which in the opinion of the State is not adequately represented in the Services under the State. It is, therefore. incumbent on the State Government to reach a conclusion that the backward class/classes for which the reservation is made is not adequately represented in the State Services. While doing so the State Govt. may take the total population of a particular backward class and its representation in the State Services. It is, therefore. incumbent on the State Government to reach a conclusion that the backward class/classes for which the reservation is made is not adequately represented in the State Services. While doing so the State Govt. may take the total population of a particular backward class and its representation in the State Services. When the State Government after doing the necessary exercise makes the reservation and provides the extent of percentage of posts to be reserved for the said backward class then the percentage has to be followed strictly. The prescribed percentage cannot be varied or changed simply because some of the members of the backward class have already been appointed/promoted against the general seats. As mentioned above the roster point which is reserved for a backward class has to be filled by way of appointment/promotion of the member of the said class. no general category candidate can be appointed against a slot in the roster which is reserved for the backward class. The fact that considerable number of members of a backward class have been appointed/promoted against general seats in the State Service may be a relevant factor for the State Govt. to review the question of continuing reservation for the said class but so long as the instructions/Rules providing certain percentage of reservations for the backward classes are operative the same have to be followed. Despite any number of appointees/promotees belonging to the backward classes against the general category posts the given percentage has to be provided in addition. We therefore, see no force in the first contention raised by the learned counsel and reject the same." The observations in Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan ( AIR 1996 SC 448 ) are also pertinent to the subject in paragraph 30 of the decision. it has been observed :- "30. : Shri Rajeev Dhawan, learned counsel for the general candidates. pointed out, what according to him, are the inequitable and anomalous situations which would follow, if the candidate appointed/promoted on the basis of rule of reservation is not confined to reserved posts alone and is allowed to compete for general posts as well. In such a situation, he submits, the reserved candidate will enjoy yet another third-advantage. pointed out, what according to him, are the inequitable and anomalous situations which would follow, if the candidate appointed/promoted on the basis of rule of reservation is not confined to reserved posts alone and is allowed to compete for general posts as well. In such a situation, he submits, the reserved candidate will enjoy yet another third-advantage. Whenever, it is convenient to him, he will claim to be considered for a reserved post and where it is more convenient to him, he will claim to be considered for a general post, whereas a general candidate is restricted to general posts alone. In our opinion, however. the pleas of the learned counsel cannot simply be accepted: his submission flies in the face of the established law on the subject." From the observations as extracted above. it is clear that while a general category candidate cannot be appointed on the post reserved for other category in so far as the candidates belonging to such reserved categories are concerned, their candidature has also to be considered on the basis of their merits in the general category. 6. It is not is dispute that the petitioners were issued notice of the appeal and had duly participated in the proceedings through their counsel. It has also not been demonstrated that the exclusion of 28 candidates on the basis of their having obtained marks lower than the percentage of the marks of the last eligible candidate in the general category suffers from any factual error of calculation of the marks obtained by these candidates or the weightage to which they were entitled. Since the Collector as the appellate authority has considered the entire record and given his findings after due notice to the petitioners, the order does not call for any interference. Rule 5 of the M.P. Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 permits the appellate authority to hold an enquiry as it may deem necessary and to confirm, vary of set aside the order appealed against. In view of the said provision, the appellate authority had the requisite power of conducting an enquiry into the illegalities brought to its notice and of varying the order appealed against. , therefore, find no substance in these petitions. 7. In view of the said provision, the appellate authority had the requisite power of conducting an enquiry into the illegalities brought to its notice and of varying the order appealed against. , therefore, find no substance in these petitions. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners have, however, further submitted that the petitioners cannot be deprived of their salary and allowances for the period for which they have actually worked on the' posts as the petitioners had been duly appointed by the Janpad Panchayat and cancellation of their appointment is not founded on any allegation that these candidates had procured the appointment by any devious means. In Nityanand Sharma and others v. State of MP. and ors. (W.P. No. 5469/1998 decided on 24.2.1999), in a similar situation, it was directed that such appointees shall be entitled to salary and allowances for the period for which they have actually worked pursuant to their selection and appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmis. In the present case also, the petitioners had joined on the said post in pursuance of the appointment duly made by the Janpad Panchayat. It is also contended that some of them have continued during the pendency of these petitions by virtue of the interim orders. Therefore, even while dismissing these petitions, it is directed that the petitioners, who have worked on the post of Shiksha Karmis before and after the impugned order, shall be entitled to salary and allowances for the period for which they have worked. The dismissal of these petitions shall, however, not be construed as depriving any petitioner from being appointed or continued if on the basis of the revised list prepared in pursuance of the direction of the Appellate Authority, he falls within the zone of the selected candidates. There shall be no order as to costs.