S. R. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) BOTH these writ petitions are inter linked with each other and having been filed by one and the same person were taken up together with the consent of the parties Counsel for a convenient disposal by common judgment. In fact writ petition No. 45392 of 1999 was instituted for quashing the order dated 6. 10-1999 whereby the petitioner was ceased to work with immediate effect and writ petition No. 28366 of 2000 has been instituted for quashing the order dated 19. 5. 2000 of the District Judge, Ghazipur thereby rejecting the application moved by the petitioner on 6. 5. 2000 with a request to be permitted to work as a class IV employee in the judgeship of Ghazipur. ( 2 ) THE petitioner appeared in the test held for recruitment on class IV posts in the judgeship of ghazipur pursuant to an advertisement published in purvanchal Times, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition No. 45392 of 1999. The result of the selection was declared pursuant to recommendation made by the duly constituted selection committee. The petitioner was declared successful, it may, however, be observed that albeit the petitioner had secured highest marks but in the select list, being Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition No. 45392 of 1999, his name was shown at S. No. 5. The select list was approved vide order dated 19. 12. 1998 with the stipulation that it would remain valid for a period of one year only and would automatically stand lapsed on the expiry of the said period of one year unless revised. By self same order dated 19. 12. 1998 the District Judge ordered that the appointment letters be issued only against substantive vacancies for the post of Process Servers, Orderlies, office Peons and Farrash. Consequent upon the order dated 19. 12. 1998 passed by the District judge, Ghazipur the petitioner was appointed. But by order dated 6. 10. 1999 the petitioner was ceased to work with a direction to wait until occurrence of vacancy. As stated herein above the order dated 6. 10. 1999 is the subject matter of challenge in writ petition No. 45392 of 1999. ( 3 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed by Sri Mukhtar Ahmad, IVth Additional District Judge, Ghazipur the order dated 6. . 10. As stated herein above the order dated 6. 10. 1999 is the subject matter of challenge in writ petition No. 45392 of 1999. ( 3 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed by Sri Mukhtar Ahmad, IVth Additional District Judge, Ghazipur the order dated 6. . 10. 1999 is sought to be justified on the plea that the appointments were to be given only in accordance with the roster but no roster was prepared by the then District Judge and on a roster being prepared by the present District Judge Sri Vikrmajit Singh, the petitioner who was shown at S. No. 5 in the select list came to be placed at S. No. . 8. Appointments, according to the respondents, ought to have been given only in accordance with the roster and since the petitioner was placed at S. No. 8 in the roster prepared by present District Judge, the impugned order dated 6. 10. 1999 had to be passed with a view to giving appointment to candidate above him in the roster. It is further stated in the said counter-affidavit that after making appointments in accordance with the roster no vacancy existed and, therefore, the petitioner nagendra Singh Yadav, was ceased to work and "required to wait for his turn for the purpose of appointment upon occurrence of any vacancy. During the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner moved an application before the District Judge on 6. 5:2000 for being given appointment. . This application culminated in an order of rejection dated 19. 5. 2000 which is the subject matter of challenge in the second writ petition No. , 28366 of 2000. The application has been rejected on three grounds: firstly, that the petitioner ceased to be an approved candidate because the wait list died its own death on 18. 12. 1999 and no vacancy was caused by the said date-, secondly, that the petitioner was wrongly placed at S. No. 5 in the select list and on that basis he was appointed in place of rightful candidate; and thirdly, when he could not be given any benefit of his previous appointment after the expiry of the life of the wait list, be cannot now claim right due to any such wait list for the whole life. ( 4 ) I have had heard Sri C. B. Yadav, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K. R. Sirohi, learned Counsel representing the respondents and gone through the documents brought on record of the writ petitions. ( 5 ) IT would appear that when the matter came up for consideration before the Court on 2. 5. 2001 it was sought to be argued by Sri Sirohi that exact number of vacancies in respect of which the selection in question was 12 but in the course of selection it was reduced to 5. In the merit list annexure No. 2 to the writ petition No. 45392 of 1999, petitioner was placed at S. No. 5 but a perusal of the original merit list, produced by Sri K. R. Sirohi pursuant to Courts order dated 2. 5. 2001 revealed that the petitioner had secured highest marks and was on the top of the select list. A copy of the original merit list has been annexed as Annexure No. V to the supplementary affidavit filed by Sri S. F. Ashraf, C. J. M. , Ghazipur. In para No. 2 of his affidavit Sri S. F. Ashraf has stated that there were 12 vacancies in class IV cadre in the judgeship of Ghazipur. These vacancies, according to supplementary affidavit, were of two types : first, in the post of Process server, orderly and Farrash in which there were five vacancies and the second category of posts covered by advertisement included four posts of Chowkidar, one posts of Waterman and two posts of Mali-total seven posts. It has come in the said affidavit that after the results were declared, the then District Judge Sri. R. P. Singh prepared two lists in accordance with the break up of the vacancies mentioned above. One list was with regard to Orderly, Process Server and farrash and Daftari and the second one was in respect of Chowkidar, Mali and Waterman. The preparation of two separate lists is sought to be justified on the ground that no examination was necessary for the post of Chowkidar, Mali and Waterman, but the examination was conducted for these posts as well for the sake of precaution and equality. The petitioner, it is further stated in the supplementary affidavit was concerned with the vacancies in the posts of Farrash, chowkidar, Process Server and Daftari. The petitioner, it is further stated in the supplementary affidavit was concerned with the vacancies in the posts of Farrash, chowkidar, Process Server and Daftari. In para No. 6, however, it is submitted that there is no procedure for preparation of separate list of selected candidates. The whole list according to the supplementary affidavit is known as waiting list as contemplated under Rule 12 of the relevant rules. A list of 26 candidates was prepared by the then District Judge and I am at loss to understand as to how was the petitioner shown at S. No. 5 in the select list when he had secured highest marks amongst all the candidates. In para Nos. 10, 11 and 12 of the supplementary affidavit of Sri S. F. Ashraf it has been clearly stated that according to the merit list the petitioner should have been at S. No. 1 in the said select list/wait list. Appointments according the supplementary affidavit filed by Sri S. F. Ashraf were made according to the merit list prepared by the then District Judge without following the roster. Present District Judge, it is stated in the supplementary affidavit, formed a committee to prepare a roster. The said committee submitted a list on the basis of the roster, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 6 to the affidavit of Sri S. F. Ashraf in which the petitioner was shown at S. No. 8. The petitioner having secured highest marks was entitled to be placed at roster point 2 in view of Section 3 (6) of the U. P. Act no. 4 of 1994 which clearly provides that "if a person belonging to any of the categories mentioned in Sub-section (1) gets selected on the basis of merit in an open competition with general candidates, he shall not be adjusted against the vacancies reserved for such category under Sub-section (1 ). ( 6 ) DURING the course of arguments Sri K. R. Sirohi, Counsel appearing for the respondents very fairly conceded that the petitioner having secured the highest marks ought not to have been ceased to work. The order dated 6. 10. 1999 by which the petitioner was ceased to work with immediate effect is patently illegal, arbitrary and has been passed in utter disregard of the provisions of law. The order dated 19. 5. The order dated 6. 10. 1999 by which the petitioner was ceased to work with immediate effect is patently illegal, arbitrary and has been passed in utter disregard of the provisions of law. The order dated 19. 5. 2000 which is subject-matter of impungement of writ petition No. 28364 of 2000 is also contrary to law and has been passed in utter disregard of the provisions of U. P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other backward Class) Act, 1994 (in short the U. P. Act No. 4 of 1994 ). Non-compliance with the provisions of Section 3 (6) of the U. P. Act 4 of 1994 may have led to reserved posts being filled up by general candidates resulting in violation of the provisions of the Act. The appointing authority in the instant case, seems to be unaware of the penal consequences of non-compliance of the provisions of the Act as visualized by Section 5. Petitioner having obtained highest marks was not to be adjusted against the vacancies reserved for O. B. C. candidates. Both these petitions, in my opinion, deserve to be allowed and the orders impugned therein are liable to be quashed. ( 7 ) IN the result, therefore, petitions succeed and are allowed. The impugned orders dated 6. 11. 1999 and 19,5. 2000 are quashed. The petitioner shall be deemed to be in continuous service and shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including salary and alloyences. .