JUDGMENT C.K. Thakker, C.J.—This petition is filed by the petitioner for an appropriate writ, direction or order to the Himachal Pradesh University-respondent No. 1 herein to declare admission given to respondent No. 2 Ms. Monisha Dhiman in M. Phil (Zoology) in general category to be illegal and unlawful and to treat admission given to her as a Scheduled Caste Candidate. A further prayer is made to admit the petitioner in M.Phil (Zoology) as a candidate in general category quashing and setting aside admission of Mr. Shyama, son of Mr. Bhagat Ram, respondent No. 3 herein for the session 2000-2001. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she is a resident of village Krishna Nagar, Ward No. 1, District Hamirpur. She passed her Masters degree in Science (M.Sc. Zoology) with 64% of marks in September, 2000 from the Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla. An advertisement was issued by the University inviting applications for admission to the Course of M.Phil in various disciplines, one of them being Zoology. Minimum percentage which was required for getting admission in M. Phil Course was 55%. Since the petitioner obtained M.Sc. degree with 64% marks, she was eligible and accordingly she submitted her form. 3. She applied for admission for M. Phil Course and she was duly interviewed by a legally constituted committee for the said purpose. According to the petitioner, her name was also included in the select list of selected candidates for admission to M.Phil Course in Zoology, but to her utter shock and surprise, she was informed that another student belonging to scheduled caste (SC) had been admitted in her place of general category. According to the petitioner, the said action was illegal and unlawful. Since she was not admitted, she was constrained to approach this Court by filing the petition. Notice was issued, pursuant to which respondents No. 1 and 3 appeared. Respondent No. 2, however, did not appear. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. Ms. Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, strenuously argued that respondent No. 2 Monisha Dhiman was one of the candidates, who had applied for the course of M.Phil in Zoology. She had applied in the reserved category of Scheduled Caste. Respondent No. 2, however, did not appear. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. Ms. Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, strenuously argued that respondent No. 2 Monisha Dhiman was one of the candidates, who had applied for the course of M.Phil in Zoology. She had applied in the reserved category of Scheduled Caste. From the record, it clearly appears that breakup of seats in admission in M. Phil (Zoology) for the session 2000-2001 was as under: "General category 5 Scheduled Caste (SC) 1 Scheduled Tribe (ST) 1 Non H.P. University students 2 Total : 9" 6. Thus, there were in all nine sets in M.Phil (Zoology). Respondent No. 2, who had obtained 65% marks as stated by the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent-University, had applied for the said Course as a reserved candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste. The petitioner belongs to a general category and she had applied as a general candidate. She had obtained 64% marks in M.Sc. examination. Respondent No. 3 Shyama admittedly belongs to Scheduled Caste category and he has obtained less marks than the petitioner in M.Sc. (Zoology). The grievance of Ms. Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that when respondent No. 2 had applied for admission as a Scheduled Caste candidate, it was incumbent on the part of the respondent-University to consider her case as such i.e. as a reserved candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste and it was not open to the University to ignore the option exercised by her, to treat her as a general candidate and to give admission on the basis of marks obtained by her ignoring the claim of the petitioner. It is no doubt true that respondent No. 2 had obtained more marks at the M.Sc. degree than the petitioner, but had the University proceeded correctly and in accordance with law by treating respondent No. 2 as a Scheduled Caste candidate and considered her claim for admission in M. Phil (Zoology) in reserved category, she would have been admitted to M. Phil (Zoology) as a Scheduled Caste candidate. The petitioner, who is a general category candidate would also have got admission on the basis of marks obtained by her. The petitioner, who is a general category candidate would also have got admission on the basis of marks obtained by her. As it was not done and the case of respondent No. 2 was considered as a general candidate ignoring the admission form under which she wanted admission as a reserved category candidate, the University had deprived the petitioner of admission and gave it to respondent No. 3, who belongs to Scheduled Caste which had caused serious prejudice to the petitioner, 7. It was submitted by the learned Counsel that once a student exercises an option and fills in form in a specified category, it is not open to the University to change that category and to consider his/her case in other category. The action was arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. 8. The question for our consideration is whether it was open to the University to consider the case of respondent No. 2 as a general candidate and to give her admission on that basis though she had applied as the reserved candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste. If the answer is in the affirmative, the action of the University cannot be termed as illegal, unlawful or otherwise objectionable and also the action of accommodating respondent No. 3 as a Scheduled Caste candidate cannot be faulted. If, on the other hand, the answer to the above question is in the negative, obviously, the grievance of the petitioner must be held to be well founded and the action of the University should be interfered with by directing it to give admission to the petitioner. 9. Now, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that special provisions have been made for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and other backward class students. In accordance with the said policy, those students can be accommodated. At the same time, however, while making reservation and granting benefits in favour of backward classes, it is not open to the authorities to ignore interest of general candidates also. Reliance in this connection was placed on a decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh v. Faculty Association and others, (1998) 4 SCC 1. Reliance in this connection was placed on a decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh v. Faculty Association and others, (1998) 4 SCC 1. Support was also sought from a judgment in Ajit Singh and others (II) v. State of Punjab and others, (1999) 7 SCC 209, that rights of reserved candidates under Article 16 of the Constitution must be balanced with right of equal opportunity enshrined under the said Article. It was indicated in the decision that maintenance of efficiency in administration is equally important factor to be kept in mind while exercising discretion in the matter of representation for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and other backward class candidates. It was also argued that when a specific claim is put forward by a particular candidate (in the instant case by respondent No. 2 as a Scheduled Caste Candidate), it was not open to the respondent-University in the absence of any provision to ignore the said claim and to accommodate her as a general candidate. On that ground also, the action deserves interference. 10. Considering the case law, however, it is clear that the action of the University cannot be termed as illegal, arbitrary or unlawful. In this connection, our attention was invited to certain decisions of the Supreme Court. In R.K. Sabharwal and others v. State of Punjab and others, (1995) 2 SCC 745, the Apex Court observed that reservation of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and backward class candidates must be kept in mind by the Government and it should be implemented in the form of running account from year to year. Posts and vacancies must be filled in on the basis of availability of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and other backward class candidates as per roaster. 11. In Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul and others, (1996) 3 SCC 253, the Apex Court held that if the candidates belonging to reserved category could be admitted on the basis of open merits, their claim should be considered as open category candidates. They should be given admission to graduate or postgraduate course on the basis of their meritorious record and reservation should be considered only thereafter. 12. They should be given admission to graduate or postgraduate course on the basis of their meritorious record and reservation should be considered only thereafter. 12. In Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh and others v. K.L. Narasimkhan and another, (1997) 6 SCC 283, the Supreme Court clearly, specifically and unequivocally observed thus : "It is settled law that if a Dalit or Tribe candidate gets selected for admission to a course or appointment to a post on the basis of merit as general candidate, he should not be treated as reserved candidate. Only one who does get admission or appointment by virtue of relaxation of eligibility criteria should be treated as reserved candidate." 13. Reference was also given to a decision of the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Ravindra Sahadeo Sonawane v. The Dean, Grant Medical College, Bombay and others, AIR 1990 Bombay 31. In that case, two backward class candidates secured more marks than the candidates belonged to non-reserved category. They were, however, not allotted seats in open and non-reservation category and were allotted seats only from the reserved category. The said action was challenged. It was contended that their cases ought to have been considered on their own merits and allotment of seats ought to have been made on the basis of marks obtained by them. Upholding the claim, the Division Bench of the High Court observed: "It should be clearly understood by all concerned that while allotting the seats between reserved and non-reserved categories, the marks/grades obtained by all the candidates, whether belonging to the reserved or non-reserved categories should first be listed in order of their merit, and the seat or seats in the open merit category should first be allotted on the basis of such merit list. While considering such allotment on merit in the open merit category, the fact that a candidate belongs to the reserved category should not be taken into consideration. It is only after the seats are so allotted on open merit on competitive basis, that the seats in the reserved category should be allotted. While considering allotment of seats in the reserved category, further, the fact that some candidates have earned seats in the open merit list should not be taken into consideration to calculate the maximum percentage of reservations. While considering allotment of seats in the reserved category, further, the fact that some candidates have earned seats in the open merit list should not be taken into consideration to calculate the maximum percentage of reservations. It must be remembered that those who come in the merit in open merit list do so not on their quota reserved for them and, therefore, they are to be excluded while calculating either the minimum or maximum seats reserved, The reserved seats should be allotted to other eligible candidates from the reserved categories." 14. In the instant case, admittedly, respondent No. 2 had obtained more marks at M.Sc. examination than the marks obtained by the petitioner. It is true that she had applied as a Scheduled Caste candidate, but in view of the fact that she was more meritorious than the petitioner, with a view to give benefit to a Scheduled Caste candidate, the University had considered the case of respondent No. 2 along with the petitioner in a un-reserved category and granted her admission. The said action of the University is legal and lawful and no grievance can be made against such an action. If it is so, obviously, the second step cannot be termed as improper or illegal. There was one vacancy earmarked for Scheduled Caste. Respondent No. 3 belongs to Scheduled Caste. He had also applied for admission as a Scheduled Caste candidate for M.Phil (Zoology). The application was rightly considered by the 1st respondent-University as such and he was granted admission. The petitioner who belongs to general category cannot make grievance against admission of respondent No. 3. " 15. For the foregoing reasons, we see no ground to interfere with the action of the respondent-University in granting admission to respondent No. 2 in general category or to respondent No. 3 as a Scheduled Caste candidate. The net result is that by not considering the claim of the petitioner, the University has not acted illegally or unlawfully. The petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.