( 1 ) A common question of reservation is involved in this case. Hence a common order is passed. Facts as narrated in WP No. 17680/2000 is as under; petitioner in this petition is seeking for a direction to consider his claim for being appointed to the post of probationer mazdoors in Bagalkot District. His further prayer is to declare the appointment of respondent No. 4 as illegal and void. He states in the petition that he belongs to Scheduled Caste and that he is entitled for rural weightage in terms of the rules as applicable to the facts of this case. The Board issued a notification calling for applications for recruitment to the post of probationer mazdoors in terms of the notification dated 24-4-1998. Four posts were reserved for schedule candidates. Another notification was issued on 5-5-1998. The petitioner being a scheduled caste candidate applied to the said post. He was called for the interview. Four candidates were selected in the final list at sl. Nos. 13,14,15 and 16. The candidate at sl. No. 16 though belongs to Schedule Casted has been selected and appointed in the GM Category as he had obtained higher marks. The candidate at sl. No. 15 though appointed in the reserved category did not accept the appointment in the Bagalkot division and he has joined the post at Belgaum and therefore the said post has fallen vacant. The additional list (waiting list) was prepared in terms of Annexure-F and he was selected in terms of the said list. He states that he should have been considered since he is the next available SC candidate for filling up of posts. He also refers to the appointment in favour of R-3 at Annexure-G. Respondents have entered appearance. Respondents 1 to 3 justify their action. They state that in terms of the Sub-Section 6 (c) (iv) the list was prepared. They also state that in case where the additional list or reserve list of candidates is prepared, those whose names are found there may be appointed by the appointing authority in the order in which their names are found in the merit list. This means that the authorities are required to operate the reserve list in accordance with merit. They also state that in case where the additional list or reserve list of candidates is prepared, those whose names are found there may be appointed by the appointing authority in the order in which their names are found in the merit list. This means that the authorities are required to operate the reserve list in accordance with merit. The reservation at this level will not follow as the reservation is already taken care in the main list and if any reserved category drops out, the same will have to be carried forward and could be treated as the vacancy in the next recruitment. Petitioner has no claim whatsoever. The contesting respondent has filed his statement of objections and he also strongly relies on Sub-Section 6 (c) (vi ). Reply statement is also filed. ( 2 ) IN WP No. 36022/2000 in facts brief are as under; petitioner in response to the notification dated 20-5-1997 issued by the respondents inviting applications for appointment to the post of Asst. , Lineman applied for the same. He appeared for physical test. He belongs to Scheduled Caste category. The list was published on 1-4-1998. Waiting list was also published in terms of Annexure-C. Petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 15. Additional select list was also published. In the said list petitioners name stands first. If 10% rural weightage is added, he deserves consideration. One Toppanna Naik whose name finds place at Sl. No. 27 did not report for duty. His post fell vacant. Petitioner was not considered though he belongs to SC category. With these allegations, he wants a writ of certiorari for quashing Annexure-J in addition to a direction. ( 3 ) WP No. 5119/2000 is filed by one Kum. Kavitha seeking for a writ of certiorary for quashing of endorsement Annexure-E2 in addition to a direction. According to her statement she has completed two years ITI course in electronics. Her name was forwarded by the Employment Exchange for the post of Asst. , Line man. She was interviewed and her name appeared at sl. No. 7 in the additional list. Two of the selected candidates namely Sri Raju Heerasing Pawar and Kum. Saroja, did not join the duty. According to her she should have been considered since the vacancy being one under Womans quota. , Line man. She was interviewed and her name appeared at sl. No. 7 in the additional list. Two of the selected candidates namely Sri Raju Heerasing Pawar and Kum. Saroja, did not join the duty. According to her she should have been considered since the vacancy being one under Womans quota. In the absence of consideration she filed a writ petition in this court in WP No. 8491/2000 and this court directed the respondents to consider her representation. There-after her representation was considered and an endorsement was issued denying her the benefits. In this case also same or similar objections are filed. ( 4 ) IN all these cases question of reservation is involved. Matter was heard for final disposal with the consent of the counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that reservation is part of the selection process and in the event of the reserved candidate not availing appointment then the reserved candidates in the waiting list are to be preferred and other candidates ought not to have been considered. Reservation is followed more in breach in the case on hand. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would say that reservation ends with the first list. Reservation cannot be extended to the second list. ( 5 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel, I have carefully perused the material on record. Admittedly all these cases involve reservation. Admitted facts reveal that the KEB called for applications for the purpose of filling up of the vacancy that arose in the Board. Notifications have been issued and petitioners are candidates for the said posts. It is also an admitted fact that the Board prepared the preliminary list called the main list in which the names of the petitioners were not found. However, their names were found in the waiting list. It is also an admitted fact that one woman candidate and two scheduled caste candidates even after selection did not report to duty. In those circumstances, vacancy did arose and those vacancies have been filled up by the Board. The essential contention of the petitioners is that such filling up of posts has to be only by either woman or reserved candidates. Contention of the respondents is that the reservation stops with the first list and it cannot be extended to the second list. The essential contention of the petitioners is that such filling up of posts has to be only by either woman or reserved candidates. Contention of the respondents is that the reservation stops with the first list and it cannot be extended to the second list. Certain group of people in this country have been suffering for no fault of them. Government realising the pitiable condition of this category of people thought it fit to render social justice by way of reservation. In the case of SC and ST constitutional reservation is permissible. In the case of woman also there exists protection in the matter of employment. It is admitted before me that the Board did follow the reservation in the first list. There is no quarrel with regard to the same. Rule 6 (c) (iv) provides for the main list and also for preparation of reserve list of names of candidates not included in the list prepared under Sec. 6 (c) (iii ). That list is operative till one year from the date of approval of the main list or till the next recruitment whichever is earlier. Sub-Section 6 (c) (vi) is introduced by way of amendment. Sub-Section 6 (c) (vi) provides that the candidates whose names are included in the list published under Regulation 6 (c) (iii) may be appointed by the appointing authority in the vacancies in the particular cadre or post in the order in which the names are found in the list after satisfying itself after such enquiry as may be considered necessary that each such candidate is suitable in all respects for appointment to a post in the cadre. Candidates whose names are included in the list prepared under regulation 6 (c) (iv) may be similarly appointed only after the candidates whose names are included in the candidates whose names are included in the list prepared under Regulation 6 (c) (iii ). The defence of the Board is that the reservation ends with the main list. As I mentioned earlier, reservation is provided to give protection to the weaker sections of the Society. Section 6 (c) (iv) provides for candidates being appointed by the appointing authority in the vacancies in which particular cadre or post in the order in which the names are found in the list. The rule does not end there. As I mentioned earlier, reservation is provided to give protection to the weaker sections of the Society. Section 6 (c) (iv) provides for candidates being appointed by the appointing authority in the vacancies in which particular cadre or post in the order in which the names are found in the list. The rule does not end there. It provides for the appointing authority satisfying itself after such enquiry as it is necessary that each such candidate is suitable in all respects for appointment to a post in the cadre. From a reading of this sub-section what is clear to me is that its meaning cannot be restricted to a mere verification of certain details as suggested by Mr. Patil learned counsel for the Board. If that were to be the intention the rule making authority would not have used the words satisfy itself after such enquiry as may be considered necessary that each candidate is suitable in all respects for appointment, which in my view would include reservation as well. Otherwise great injury/ injustice is done to reservation. It is also necessary for me to make it clear that the second list is also prepared taking into consideration the reservation with the laudable object of consideration of suitable candidates. Otherwise there is no need for providing reservation in the second list also. I must also observe that no rule is to be read so as to defeat the rule of object of reservation. ( 6 ) THE Board has placed before me the proceedings necessitating the amendment. Material facts reveal that on an earlier occasion, this court in WP No. 5981/91 noticed the various contentions and ruled in para 3 reading as under; 3. Countering these contentions, the respondents submitted that under the regulations relating to recruitment and promotions, the recruiting authority has to prepare a reserved list of names of candidates not included in the main list, in which the number of candidates should be 50% of the vacancies notified and that list can be operated and under those rules, the person who figures first in the additional list will have to be selected for any vacancy and relies on Government Circular in that regard. But, the circular issued by the government is in relation to its selection rules and not with reference to the Boards selection at all and therefore, I do not understand as to how the learned counsel for the respondents could rely on the circulars of the Government. The government circular merely interprets the rules as available in the Government and that by itself has no binding effect on the Board. Therefore, the Board need not be tagged down by what is stated in the circular. Independent of the circular, if we look at the relevant rules, they do not say in what manner candidates in the additional list will have to be appointed. Whether the reservation policy should be applied in case of the additional list also or not is not make clear. When the vacancy itself was reserved for a scheduled caste and if that vacancy could not be filling up by a Scheduled caste candidate, the proper course was to carry over the post unless that candidate was available in the additional list. If such a candidate was available he should have been appointed. In the present case, unfortunately, petitioner who is a scheduled caste candidate and whose name is found in the additional list, has not been selected against a scheduled caste vacancy, in the circumstances, it is appropriate to direct respondents 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner in the reserved vacancy for scheduled caste, if possible, without disturbing the fourth respondent, petition is allowed. It was after this judgment the Board in its wisdom called for a meeting and considered filling up of the posts in the event of non-acceptance of the offer by the candidate in the first list. Rule 8 (2) of the KSCS (Direct Recruitment by Selection) Rules 1973, was also taken note of. Even after amendment in my view all the Board has done is to give effect to the judgment of this court by way of reservation. I do not think that the Board wants to create a rule overruling the judgment of this court. Therefore the argument of Mr. Patil, that the order of priority is dehors reservation is not acceptable to me. ( 7 ) RECENTLY, I had an occasion to consider somewhat same or similar question in the case of appointment in a Judicial Department in WP No. 23612/2001. Therefore the argument of Mr. Patil, that the order of priority is dehors reservation is not acceptable to me. ( 7 ) RECENTLY, I had an occasion to consider somewhat same or similar question in the case of appointment in a Judicial Department in WP No. 23612/2001. I have ruled in para 7 reading as under; 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. 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 No. 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 make candidate for the post reserved for a female candidate. If such deviation is permissible then the very object of reservation is lost. However, respon-dents have referred to Annexure-II, namely General Recruitment Rules. They say that the rules do provide for consideration of a male candi- date 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 candidates. 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. This also would support the case of the petitioners. ( 8 ) I must also refer to the constitutional mandate. Article 46 provides for promotion of economic interests of the weaker sections of the people and in particular Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes. The laudable object of these directive principles has to be achieved. This also would support the case of the petitioners. ( 8 ) I must also refer to the constitutional mandate. Article 46 provides for promotion of economic interests of the weaker sections of the people and in particular Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes. The laudable object of these directive principles has to be achieved. Article 15 provides for prohibition of discrimination against any citizen on ground of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth. Article 39 provides for State Policy towards securing equal right to women. Article 39 (e) provides for State Policy towards health of women. Taking into consideration the realities in this country, where the women have suffered fairly for a long time, the Government has chosen to provide reservation for women in its Government order to achieve equality. In these circumstances I deem it proper to accept the contention of the petitioner even with regard to reservation for women. ( 9 ) IN these circumstances, accepting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners these petitions are allowed. Orders issued to the contesting respondents are set aside. The Board is directed to consider the case of the petitioners from the waiting list and provide benefits in accordance with law. The respondent scheduled candidates are to be considered if any back-log vacancy is available as on today to render justice to them as well. Parties are to bear their respective costs. --- *** --- .