S. ANANDA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed praying tor the issue of writ of mandamus declaring the Notification issued by the 1st respondent published in Eenadu daily on 11-1-1999 and also G. O. Ms. No. 99, dated 22-10-1998 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the judgment of this Court and pass such other order or orders, as this Court deems fit. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner s father, by name K. Anandam, was the fair price shop dealer of Shop no. 93 of Ursu and he worked for more than 28 years without any complaint. He died in the month of September 1998. Consequent upon the death of the Petitioner s father, the vacancy of the fair price shop dealer arose. To fill up the vacancies of fair price shop dealers, including that of shop no. 93 of Ursu village, the 1st respondent had issued Notification dated 14-8-1998 for about 26 fair price shops. In the said notification, the Shop No. 93 was earmarked for general category. The said notification was set aside under the impugned notification as well as by this Court s judgment in P. Katama Reddy v. Revenue divisional Officer, Anantapur, 1998 (1) ald 136 (DB), under which a Memo issued by the Government reserving all the vacancies of fair price shop dealers in favour of the women candidates, was assailed. By the said judgment, a Division Bench of this court, while allowing the writ petition, quashed the Memos issued by the government as well as consequential notifications issued. The Division Bench also gave certain directions and one of the directions is that more than 50% of the vacancies shall not be reserved for filling up to those vacancies by the candidates belonging to the special categories. Pursuant to the said judgment, the State government issued the impugned G. O. Ms. No. 99, dated 22-10-1998 and the 1st respondent consequently issued the publication calling for applications in respect of 35 shops. Pursuant to the said judgment, the State government issued the impugned G. O. Ms. No. 99, dated 22-10-1998 and the 1st respondent consequently issued the publication calling for applications in respect of 35 shops. According to the Petitioner, under the above said G. O. , issued by the government, though 30% of the vacancies are reserved for women candidates, but further a rider was incorporated in the said orders that until 30% reservation for women is achieved in the Unit, notifications may be issued inviting only women candidates. According to the Petitioner, the said rider contained in the G. O. is contrary to the - judgment of this Court, referred to earlier. It is also stated that in the said G. O. Ms. No. 99, dated 22-10-1998, reservation was provided to the extent of 49% i. e. , 15% for Scheduled Castes, 6% for scheduled Tribes, 3% for Physically handicapped and 25% for Backward classes. Though the said reservation is in accordance with the restriction imposed in the judgment, but, however, while issuing the Notification, almost all the (35) vacancies were sought to be filled with the candidates belonging to women (15), Scheduled Tribe (13) and Physically Handicapped (7 ). In the said Notification, as almost all the vacancies are reserved only to the special categories specified therein, it amounts to 100% reservation and therefore, contrary to the judgment of this Court as well judgment of the Supreme Court. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner also contended that separate reservation to the women candidates, as a separate entity itself, is illegal and contrary to the judgment of this Court. As held by the High Court as well as the Supreme court, the women reservation has to be applied horizontally, cutting across all the categories of the candidates i. e. , the said 30% has to be filled by adjusting in respect of each category, such as open category, scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, backward classes etc. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, the reservation of 15 posts completely earmarking fpr women itself is illegal, which if allowed, would amounts to making a vertical reservation rather than horizontal, as was held by the High Court as well as the Supreme Court. Therefore, the learned Counsel sought for quashing of the G. O. as well as the consequential notification issued by the respondents. Therefore, the learned Counsel sought for quashing of the G. O. as well as the consequential notification issued by the respondents. ( 4 ) A counter has been filed by the 1st respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer. In the counter, it is specifically stated that the G. O. Ms. No. 99, dated 22-10-1998-was issued in accordance with the judgment of this Court in P. Katama Reddy v. Revenue divisional Officer, Anantapur (supra ). The appointing authority, the 1st respondent, followed the said rules and issued the notification dated 11-1-1999 inviting the applications from different categories of candidates for filling up of 35 vacancies in the Warangal division, which is the Unit of reservation. It is also stated in the counter that the reservation made in the g. O. , to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, physically Handicapped and Backward classes comes to 49% and the same is well within the limit prescribed by the High court in the above referred judgment. In the counter, the 1st respondent has given the total number of fair price shops, as on the date of the Notification, at 595 and also gave the number of vacancies to be filled as per the reservation and actually the number of candidates belongs to the respective categories already occupying the vacancies. Therefore, it is stated that there is a shortfall, according to the 1st respondent, in the categories of Scheduled tribes, Physically Handicapped and women category. Though, in fact, in the table it was shown that in respect of the scheduled Castes, the existing shops held by them are more than the required shops to be filled by them. Therefore, it is stated that to achieve the reservation target as per the G. O. Ms. No. 99, dated 22-10-1998, the notification has been issued, which is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of india. In Paragraph-5 of the counter, it is also specifically stated that the reservation apart from 30% for women, was limited only to 49% and further that the 30% reservation for women has to be adjusted cutting across the other reservations, including the open category. Therefore, it is stated that the reservation, as fixed in the G. O. , is less than 50%. Hence, there is no illegality or irregularity in the G. O. , issued by the government. Therefore, it is stated that the reservation, as fixed in the G. O. , is less than 50%. Hence, there is no illegality or irregularity in the G. O. , issued by the government. In paragraph-6 of the counter, it is further stated that as there is a shortfall in the existing women candidates, scheduled tribes and physically handicapped, as fixed in the G. O. , and in order to fulfil the said shortfall the impugned notice was issued ear-marking the vacancies only to the candidates where there is a shortfall. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition. ( 5 ) THE learned Government Pleader, reiterating the contentions in the counter, contended that the G. O. , as well as the notification issued are intended to comply the rule of reservation and in order to fill up the shortfall the impugned notification was issued reserving all the vacancies to the candidates belonging to women, scheduled castes and physically handicapped. The learned Government Pleader also tried to contend that each Revenue Division is a unit for implementation of the reservation and in order to fulfil the rule of reservation within the Unit, unless the shortfall vacancies are filled up by the respective categories of the candidates, it would not be possible to comply and implement the rule of reservation. The learned Government pleader also contended that if the respondents are not free to fill up certain of the vacancies exclusively with candidates belonging to particular categories, wherever there is a shortfall the deficiency could not be corrected so as to see that the rule of reservation is fully implemented. ( 6 ) HEARD both sides and considered the material on record. ( 7 ) THE issue that falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the impugned g. O. , issued by the Government and the consequential Notification issued by the 1st respondent, calling for applications for filling up 35 vacancies from the women candidates, scheduled tribes, physically handicapped candidates, is just and proper and is in accordance with the judgment of this Court. ( 8 ) IT is not in dispute, earlier the State government issued Memos in order to give equal representation to the women candidates reserving 100 % of the vacancies. ( 8 ) IT is not in dispute, earlier the State government issued Memos in order to give equal representation to the women candidates reserving 100 % of the vacancies. When such memos were assailed before this Court in P. Katama Reddy v. Revenue divisional Officer, Anantapur (supra) a division Bench of this Court quashed the said memos holding that such reservation of 100% of the vacancies for women, offends the provisions of the Constitution of India and therefore, issued the following directions, while quashing the memos :-"in view of what is stated supra, we hold : (i) that women reservation in the matter of allotment of fair price shops shall be fixed at 30%, (II) that while making the women reservation as specified above, the Government has to follow the other reservations already in vogue; (III) that the fair-price shop dealers selected from women quota shall have to be adjusted both in the reserved category and also open category; (IV) that the Government, while making reservations both for women and other categories, shall ensure that reservations should not exceed 50% of the fair-price shops; (V) all notifications pursuant to the impugned memo stand set aside; (VI) that the Government shall issue instructions in accordance with the above directions, to all the appellate authorities for fair-price shop dealers; and (VII) that each revenue division/circle shall be taken as a unit. ( 9 ) THE said judgment was carried in appeal by way of S. L. P. to the Apex Court and the State Government was not successful as the said SLP and even the Review petitions filed were dismissed. In the judgment, the Division Bench while setting aside the memos also set aside all the notifications issued in pursuance of the said memos. Thereafter, the State Government issued the impugned G. O. Ms. No. 99, dated 22-10-1998. From the said G. O. , it is clear from its preamble that it was issued to implement the orders of this Court and reservation for the women candidates so fixed at 30% and insofar as the other categories of reservations are concerned, the reservations are restricted to less than 50%. The reservations, as fixed, are scheduled Castes 15%, Scheduled Tribes 6%, Physically Handicapped 3% and backward Classes 25%. To that extent, there is no dispute by the petitioner. The reservations, as fixed, are scheduled Castes 15%, Scheduled Tribes 6%, Physically Handicapped 3% and backward Classes 25%. To that extent, there is no dispute by the petitioner. But, however, the impugned G. O. , contains a further rider, which was incorporated in clause (i) of the G. O. , which reads as under:"allotment or fair-price shops to women shall be restricted to 30% taking each revenue division/circle (in cities) as a unit. Until the 30% reservation prescribed for women is achieved, notifications may be issued calling for applications only from women and women s organizations duly indicating that the percentage of shops held by women is less than the 30% prescribed by the Hon ble High Court. In those revenue Divisions or Circles in cities, where the percentage of shops held by women exceeds 30%, the vacancies may be filled in by men candidates. By the above, the 2nd Respondent directed the appellate authorities to issue Notifications calling for applications only from women and women organizations, until 30% for women is achieved in the Unit of reservation i. e. , the Division. Pursuant to this direction, the 1st respondent/the Revenue Divisional officer, who is the appointing authority, issued notifications calling for applications in eenadu daily on 11-1-1999 for filling up of 35 vacancies out of which, 14 from women candidates, 13 from Scheduled Tribes; 7 by physically handicapped and 1 for women credit Traif group. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said notification shows 100% reservation of the vacancies sought to be filled, which is contrary to the judgment of this Court as well as the supreme Court. A perusal of the above directions clearly shows that as per direction (iv), the Government, while making reservations both for women and other categories, shall ensure that reservations should not exceed 50% of the fair price shops. If this direction is to be implemented, the reservation in the Notification issued by the 1st respondent shall not exceed 50% i. e. , out of 35 vacancies only 17. 5 vacancies can be reserved. But, contrary to the said direction, all the 35 vacancies are reserved to be filled by specific categories of candidates. If this direction is to be implemented, the reservation in the Notification issued by the 1st respondent shall not exceed 50% i. e. , out of 35 vacancies only 17. 5 vacancies can be reserved. But, contrary to the said direction, all the 35 vacancies are reserved to be filled by specific categories of candidates. In fact, this Court while rendering the judgment in the case of P. Katama Reddy v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur (supra) held that the women reservation has to be applied by cutting across all the categories of candidates, that means, it should be applied only in horizontal manner in which case the reservation for women shall be in respect of each of the categories of candidates, such as open category, scheduled Caste category Scheduled Tribe category and Backward Class category. Now, under the impugned Notification, 14 vacancies are reserved for women candidates, which if allowed amounts to vertical reservation. Further, the proposed action of the respondents that the 30% reservation has to be applied in respect of the entire number of fair price shops in the division by providing reservation towards the deficiency is contrary to the judgment of the supreme Court in the case of Indra sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477 . In order to have a clear understanding of the decision of the Apex Court, in the above decision, it could be proper to refer to the relevant portion of the judgment, where this issue was considered, which is as under: "we are also of the opinion that this rule of 50% applies only to reservations in favour of Backward Classes made under article 16 (4 ). A little clarification is in order at this juncture: all reservations are not of the same nature. There are two types of reservations, which may, for the sake of convenience, be referred to as vertical reservations and "horizontal reservations". The reservations in favour of; Scheduled castes, Scheduled Tribes and other backward Classes (under Article 16 (4) may be called vertical reservations whereas reservations in favour of physically handicapped (under clause (1) of Article 16) can be referred to as horizontal reservations. Horizontal reservations cut across the vertical reservations what is called interlocking reservations. To be more precise, suppose 3% of the vacancies are reserved in favour of physically handicapped persons; this would be a reservation relatable to clause (1) of Article 16. Horizontal reservations cut across the vertical reservations what is called interlocking reservations. To be more precise, suppose 3% of the vacancies are reserved in favour of physically handicapped persons; this would be a reservation relatable to clause (1) of Article 16. The persons selected against this quota will be placed in the appropriate category; if he belongs to S. C. category he will be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustments. Even after providing for these horizontal reservations, the percentage of reservations in favour of backward class of citizens remains - and should remain - the same. This is how these reservations are -worked out in several States and there is no reason not to continue that procedure. It is, however, made clear that the rule of 50% shall be applicable only to reservations proper; they shall not be indeed cannot be applicable to exemptions, concessions or relaxations, if any, provided to backward class of Citizens under Article 16 (4 ). The next aspect of this question is whether a year should be taken as the unit or the total strength of the cadre, for the purpose of applying the 50% rule. Balaji ( AIR 1963 sc 649 ) does not deal with this aspect but devadasan ( AIR 1964 SC 179 ) (majority opinion) does, Mudholkar, J. speaking for the majority says:"we would like to emphasize that the guarantee contained in Article 16 (1) is for ensuring equality of opportunity for all citizens relating to employment, and to appointments to any office under-the State. This means that on every occasion for recruitment the State should see that all citizens are treated equally. The guarantee is to each individual citizen and, therefore, every citizen who is seeking employment or appointment to an office under the Stat is entitled to be afforded an opportunity for seeking such employment or appointment whenever it is intended to be filled. In order to effectuate the guarantee each year of recruitment will have to be considered by itself and the reservation for backward communities should not be so excessive as to create a monopoly or to disturb unduly the legitimate claims of other communities. On the other hand is the approach adopted by Ray, C. J. in Thomas ( AIR 1976 SC 490 ). While not disputing the correctness of the 50% rule he seems to apply it to the entire service as such. On the other hand is the approach adopted by Ray, C. J. in Thomas ( AIR 1976 SC 490 ). While not disputing the correctness of the 50% rule he seems to apply it to the entire service as such. In our opinion, the approach adopted by Ray, CJ. would not be consistent with Article 16. True it is that the backward classes, who are victims of historical social injustice, which has not ceased fully as yet, are not properly represented in the services under the State but it may not be possible to redress this imbalance in one go i. e. , in a year or two. The position can be better explained by taking an illustration. Take a unit/service/ cadre comprising 1000 posts. The reservation in favour of Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled castes, and Other Backward Classes is 50% which means that out of the 1000; posts 500 must be held by the members of these classes i. e. , 270 by other backward classes. 150 by scheduled castes and 80 by scheduled tribes. At a given point of time, let us say, the number of members of O. B. Cs. in the unit/service/category is only 50. a short fall of 220. Similarly, the number of members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes is only 20 and 5 respectively, shortfall of 130 and 75. If the entire service/cadre is taken as a unit and the backlog is sought to be made up, then the open competition channel has to be choked altogether for a number of years until the number of members of all backward classes reaches 500 i. e. , till the quota meant for each of them is filled up. This may take quite a number of years because the number of vacancies arising each year are not many. Meanwhile, the members of open competition category would become age barred and ineligible. Equality of opportunity in their case would become a mere mirage. It must be remembered that the equality of opportunity guaranteed by clause (1) is to each individual citizen of the country while clause (4) contemplates special provision being made in favour of socially disadvantaged classes. Both must be balanced against each other. Neither should be. , allowed to eclipse the other. It must be remembered that the equality of opportunity guaranteed by clause (1) is to each individual citizen of the country while clause (4) contemplates special provision being made in favour of socially disadvantaged classes. Both must be balanced against each other. Neither should be. , allowed to eclipse the other. For the above reason, we hold that for the purpose of applying the rule of 50% a year should be taken as the unit and not the entire strength of the cadre, service or the unit, as the case may be. " ( 10 ) AS per the above decision of the apex Court, the action of the State government proposing to reserve all the vacancies to be filled by women candidates until the 30% reservation for women is achieved, is not permissible. As per the view expressed by the Apex Court, the reservation of 30% has to be "followed only from the date when such reservation has been made and in respect of subsequent notifications issued after such reservation is provided for and not from an anterior date, as such the contention was expressly negatived by the Apex Court. ( 11 ) HOWEVER, it was contended by the learned Government Pleader that there is some ambiguity with reference to the direction (iv) that the reservation both for women and other categories shall ensure that the reservation should not exceed 50% of the fair price shops. According to the learned Government Pleader, the women reservation as well as the other reservations shall not exceed 50%. But as it is very clear from the judgment, when 30% reservation was directed to be provided for women candidates, which is to be applied horizontally i. e. , cutting across the other reservations, the same shall not mean that both women and other categories together should not exceed 50%. The said 50% reservation is only with reference to the other categories. Insofar as the women reservation is concerned, such reservation also should not exceed 50%, and in fact, it was fixed only at 30%. Therefore, there is no ambiguity as there is no conflict between the women reservation and the reservation to other categories for which the ceiling of 50% is applicable. ( 12 ) IN view of the above, the restriction, or rider incorporated in G. O. Ms. Therefore, there is no ambiguity as there is no conflict between the women reservation and the reservation to other categories for which the ceiling of 50% is applicable. ( 12 ) IN view of the above, the restriction, or rider incorporated in G. O. Ms. No. 99, dated 22-10-1998 is illegal, unsustainable, and contrary to the judgment of our High Court as well as the Apex court and therefore, to that extent the impugned G. O. , is quashed. ( 13 ) COMING to the Notification dated 11-1-1999 issued by the 1st respondent, the vacancies reserved for women, scheduled tribes and physically handicapped is not in accordance with the rule of reservation. The vacancies are to be reserved only as provided in clause (iv) of the G. O. , i. e. , less than 49% to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, backward Classes etc. In fact, physically handicapped were also provided reservation of 3%, which works out as a vertical reservation, though in fact the Apex Court held that the physically handicapped reservation also has to be applied in the horizontal manner i. e. , as against different categories of candidates by adjusting against the vacancies of each of the categories. Therefore, any notification issued for filling up of the vacancies has to show only open competition and the categories of reservations as specified in clause (iv ). With reference to each of the category, such as open category, scheduled tribes, scheduled castes etc. , there can be an intra-reservation for women, which would work out horizontally so as to comply the rule of reservation of 30% for women. As the Notification was not in conformity with the above position, the said Notification issued by the 1st respondent is liable to be quashed. ( 14 ) THOUGH this Court directed to maintain status quo only with reference to shop No. 93, but, insofar as the other remaining vacancies are concerned, the direction of this Court is that they will be filled subject to the result of the writ petition. As such direction was incorproated even before filling up of those vacancies and as the Notification issued is not in accordance with the directions of the Court, the notification is also quashed. ( 15 ) THE writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.