ORDER R. Gururajan, J.--Petitioner-Gousia Begum is before me seeking to quash the Notification dated 30.4.2001 at Annexure-C issued by the first Respondent in so far as appointment of second Respondent to the post of Process Server under the category II(b) is concerned and to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first Respondent to appoint the Petitioner to the post of process server as per Annexure-A. 2. Petitioner states that the first Respondent issued a notification dated 24.2.2001 calling for applications in prescribed forms from the candidates who are qualified for the post of process server in the judicial department in Bidar unit. In the general merit a post was reserved for a male candidate and under Category II(b) a post was reserved for a female candidate in terms of Annexure-A. Petitioner had applied for the post of process server along with necessary documents. She was called for interview. According to her, instead of considering her case, the case of second Respondent was considered. Same is questioned in this petition. 3. Notices were issued and the Respondents have entered appearance. 4. Respondent-1 justifies their action. They say that there were two female candidates available including the Petitioner. Two female and 8 male candidates of Category II(b) were called for the interview. Only 9 candidates including two female candidates appeared for the interview. During the course of interview, Respondent-2 was found suitable and hence his case was considered. Respondent-2 was also given 10 marks in the interview. They justify their action. 5. Matter is heard. Sri Nazeer, learned Counsel for the Petitioner reiterated the facts and grounds raised in the writ petition. Per contra, Sri Narayanswamy, Government Pleader and Sri Manikappa Patil, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 supports the endorsement. 6. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the material on record. 7. Annexure-A is a notification in the matter of direct recruitment to the post of process server in the Judicial Department, Bidar. There were two vacancies. One vacancy was reserved for male in the general merit and the other vacancy was reserved for Group II(b) category - Female. In the case on hand, Petitioner appeared for the interview and she was qualified in terms of Annexure-B. Her case has not been properly considered by the Respondent-1. There were two vacancies. One vacancy was reserved for male in the general merit and the other vacancy was reserved for Group II(b) category - Female. In the case on hand, Petitioner appeared for the interview and she was qualified in terms of Annexure-B. Her case has not been properly considered by the Respondent-1. Respondents say that the interview was held for two female candidates and 8 male candidates who belong to the same category II(b). They say that Respondent No. 2 obtained better marks than the Petitioner. When a specific post is reserved for a female candidate, it is not open to the Respondent-1 to select Respondent No. 2 on the ground that he has obtained better marks than the Petitioner. If there are two posts for female candidates, better-marks theory could be adopted. But in the guise of better marks, it is not open to Respondent No. 1 to select a male candidate for the post reserved for a female candidate. If such deviation is permissible then the very object of reservation is lost. However, Respondents have referred to Annexure-II, namely General Recruitment Rules. They say that the Rules do provide for consideration of a male candidate provided that there are no sufficient number of eligible women candidates. That is not the case here. Women candidates were available and their cases have been given a go-bye on the principle of better male candidate. Looking from any angle, selection of a male candidate as against a post reserved for a female candidate, particularly, when women candidates were available, is unsustainable in law. 8. Writ Petition is allowed. Selection of Respondent No. 2 in terms of Annexure-C is set aside. Respondent No. 1 is directed to reconsider the case in accordance with law. Time for completion of the proceedings is three months from the date of receipt of this order. No Cost.