JUDGMENT 1. - Common grievance of six petitioners in the instant writ petition is that female candidates have not been given adequate representation of 25% reservation quota by the respondents at the time of counselling for allotment of seats. The petitioners, after qualifying for MBBS appeared as OBC (non service) candidates in the Pre-PG Medical Examination 2003 for admission to MD/MS/Diploma Courses. The petitioners qualified in the written examination and their names were included in the list of OBC candidates showing their respective merit position, Vice Chancellor, University of Rajasthan, as per decision of the State Government allowed 25% reservation to the female 10 candidates. The candidates were called for counselling for allotment of seats in different Medical Colleges from 19.6.2003 to 22.6.2003. But on June 19 although the candidates belonging to all other categories were called and candidates of OBC (Non service) category were left. According to the petitioner the act of respondents in not calling OBC (Non service) candidates on first date of counselling is arbitrary and discriminatory and it resulted into serious loss of good speciality subject. 2. In the reply submitted by respondents it is averred that as per the provisions contained in Ordinance 278-E of University of Rajasthan, after 25% of the seats were given to Central quota, 50% of the remaining seats were required to be first offered to in service candidates in the event of non availability of candidates in reserved category of SC & ST from amongst the in-service candidates, such seats were required to be offered to the candidates belonging to SC & ST of open/freshers category. Therefore Non-service candidates from the category of SC & ST were also called. The reason for not calling OBC (Non service) candidates was that against the available number of OBC seats, sufficient number of candidates were available in OBC (in service) category. It is further averred that while the reservation given to SC/ST was vertical reservation, reservation provided to female candidates was horizontal in nature. Female candidates to SC/ST had also been given admission firstly as per their inter se merit vis a vis of male candidate of their respective category. 3. It is further averred that while the reservation given to SC/ST was vertical reservation, reservation provided to female candidates was horizontal in nature. Female candidates to SC/ST had also been given admission firstly as per their inter se merit vis a vis of male candidate of their respective category. 3. Respondents placed on record a chart of merit wise allotment of PG seats for the year 2003 batch of Non-service candidates to explain that all the candidates whether male or female and whether SC/ST had been given admission strictly as per their inter se merit. 4. Mr. Ashok Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioner, canvassed that the counselling exercised carrying out by the respondents ignoring the candidates of OBC (Non-service) as per their merit on first date of counselling is illegal and arbitrary and discriminatory. All reservations extended by the State Government are on the equal footing and no discrimination can be made amongst any category of reservation. Once the SC/ST, OBC in-service candidates were afforded the opportunity of giving subjects of their choice, the OBC Non-service candidates were required to be treated on equal footing. Reservation of 25% of the female candidates has been frustrated by the respondents by not ear-marking in each speciality and respondents have taken away the rights of petitioners to get subjects of their choice. The respondents have clubbed all the seats of male and female candidates in one category and combined list of OBC Non-service candidates was drawn. The respondents were required to draw a separate merit list of OBC non-service female candidates and then allotments of seats should have been made as per merit of OBC Female Non-service candidates. The entire exercise of counselling by not calling female candidates at Sr. No. 4 after counselling of 3 male OBC candidates was bad and not sustainable in eyes of law. Reservation of 25% of female candidates could have only been ensured by way of calling male and female candidates on rotational basis. By clubbing all the candidates, female candidates of OBC category were deprived of getting batter branches. Reliance is placed on State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Gopal D. Thirthani & Ors.. 2003 AIR SCW 3636 ; State of Bihar & Ors. v. M. Neethi Chandra & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 36 ; Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1378 ; Indra Sawhney & Ors. Reliance is placed on State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Gopal D. Thirthani & Ors.. 2003 AIR SCW 3636 ; State of Bihar & Ors. v. M. Neethi Chandra & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 36 ; Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1378 ; Indra Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217 and Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., (1995) 5 SCC 173 . 5. Per contra, Mr. S.M. Mehta learned Advocate General, contended that the provisions contained in Ordinance 278-E were applied in letter and spirit and 25% of the seats were given to Central quota, 50% of the remaining seats were required to be first offered to in-service candidates. In the event of non availability of in-service candidates of SC/ST, such seats were required to be offered to the candidates of OBC Open/freshers category. Therefore, non-service candidates from the category of SC/ST were also called. As sufficient number of in-service candidates were available to offer OBC seats, OBC (Non-service) candidates were not called. Reliance is placed on K. Duraisamy & Anr. etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 717 . 6. I have pondered over the rival submissions and scanned the material on record. 7. In Indra Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. , (supra) their Lordships of Supreme Court propounded that all reservations are not of the same nature. There are two types of reservations, (1) "vertical reservations" and (2) "horizontal reservations". The reservations in favour of SC, ST and Other Backward Classes, u/Art. 16(4), may be called vertical reservations, whereas reservations in favour of physically handicapped, u/Art. 16(1) can be referred to as horizontal reservations. Horizontal reservations cut across the vertical reservations what is called interlocking reservations. 8. In Duraisamy & Anr. etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. , (supra) 5 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that so far as the admission to super speciality and Post Graduate Diploma/Degree/MDS courses are concerned two sources of candidates based upon a broad classification into two categories, i.e. in-service candidates and non-service or private candidates with each one of them allocated exclusively for their own respective category of candidates fifty percent of the seats, the ultimate selection for admission depending upon the inter se merit performance amongst their own category of candidates. It was indicated as under: "It is by now a proposition well settled, that at the super speciality level in particular and even at the Post Graduate level reservations of the kind known as "protective discrimination" in favour of those considered to he backward should be avoided as being not permissible. Reservation even if it be claimed to be so in this case, for and in favour of in-service candidates, cannot be equated or treated on par with communal reservations envisaged u/Art. 15(4) or 16(4) and extended the special mechanics of their implementation to ensure such reservations to be the minimum by not counting those selected in open competition on the basis of their own merit as against the quota reserved on communal considerations." Their Lordships Further held as under: "....That apart, where the Scheme envisaged is not by way of a mere reservation but is one of classification of the sources from which admissions have to be accorded, fixation of respective quota for such classified groups, the principles at time applied in construing provisions relating to reservation simplicities will have no relevance or application." 9. It is the admitted case of petitioners that they were called for interview on the last date of counselling i.e. 22.6.2003. They received telephonic message before the interview whereby they were informed that in order to give due representation to female candidates they were required to appear before the interview board The petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 were allotted branches of Diploma it Gy. & OB (DGO) Udaipur, the petitioner No. 4 was allotted Diploma in Anaesthesia (DA) Jaipur, whereas the petitioners No. 5 & 6 were respectively allotted MD (Micro Biology) Ajmer and Jaipur. 10. The Women undoubtedly are well defined class and that too for specified discipline i.e. Obstetrics and Gynaecology and Anaesthesia. As such the purpose of providing relaxation in eligibility criterion in favour of female doctors is not unreasonable. 11. In State of Bihar & Ors. v. M. Neethi Chandra & Ors. , (supra) it was held that girls, being one of the reserved category, when qualifying on merit for general candidates should also be given an option to be treated as 45 general candidates for the purpose of allotment of seats. 12. In Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. v. M. Neethi Chandra & Ors. , (supra) it was held that girls, being one of the reserved category, when qualifying on merit for general candidates should also be given an option to be treated as 45 general candidates for the purpose of allotment of seats. 12. In Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. , (supra) it was held that proper and correct course for filling the seats is to first fill up the OC quota (50%) on the basis of merit: then fill up each of the social reservation quotas, i.e. SC, ST and BC; the third step would be to find out how many candidates belonging to special reservations have been selected on the above basis. If the quota fixed for horizontal reservation is already satisfied in case it is an overall horizontal reservation no further question arises. 13. In the case on hand, I find that as per Ordinance 278-E after 25% of 1 the seats, were given to Central quota, 50% of remaining seats were required to be first offer to in-service candidates. The OBC (non-service) candidates were not called for counselling on the first day as against the available number of OBC seats sufficient number of candidates were available in their 5 category which would be evident from the following table:- Category No. of seats Candidates available Deficit No. of candidates S.C. 26 5 21 S.T. 19 1 18 C.B.C. 34 35 (+) 1 general 84 93 (+) 9 Total 163 134 - It is evident from the above table that against 34 number of seats 1-service candidates were available in the OBC category. A look at the chart (Annex.R/2) reveals merit wise allotment of PG seats (Degree/Diploma) for tie year 2003, As against female OBC non-service candidates following female doctors were allotted branches as under: Candidate Branch 1 Dr. Anita Yadav Gyn. & Obst. Jaipur 2 Dr. Manju Bala D.G.O. Jaipur 3 Dr. Madhu Bansal D.G.O. Udaipur 4 Dr. Sarika D.G.O. Udaipur 5 Dr. Seema Dagar D.G.O. Udaipur 6 Dr. Urmila Banawat D.A. Udaipur 7 Dr. Neetu Soni D.A. Bikaner 8 Dr. Vinita Micro Ajmer 9 Dr. Shahida Riyaz Micro, Jaipur 14. Reservation given to SC/ST on communal reservation is a vertical reservation. Reservation provided to female candidates is only horizontal in nature which has to cut through the reservation provided in vertical nature of reservation. Urmila Banawat D.A. Udaipur 7 Dr. Neetu Soni D.A. Bikaner 8 Dr. Vinita Micro Ajmer 9 Dr. Shahida Riyaz Micro, Jaipur 14. Reservation given to SC/ST on communal reservation is a vertical reservation. Reservation provided to female candidates is only horizontal in nature which has to cut through the reservation provided in vertical nature of reservation. From the material on record, I find that female candidates of SC & ST have also been given admission strictly as per their inter se merit vis a vis of male candidates of their respective category. On a close look at chart Annex. R/2, it appears that all candidates whether male or female in the 35 category of SC/ST and OBC have been given admission strictly as per their inter se merit. The petitioners have been given benefit of reservation of 25% as they have been given admission despite the fact that they were much lower than other candidates of non-service category. I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the submission of learned counsel that the petitioners, in view of ordinance 278-E, have any right to be called on the first day of counselling. SC/ST female candidates form a different class and their seats have been filled up in accordance with the roster point. In-service OBC candidates have to be called earlier and thereafter non-service candidates were called in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance 278-E. In-service 45 080 candidates and non-service OBC candidates form two separate groups and they cannot claim parity with the in-service OBC candidates. The petitioners also cannot claim any parity with the SC/ST female candidates.The petitioners have given benefit of 25% reservation against the quota fixed for non-service OBC female candidates and they have been given preference over the male OBC candidates who secured even higher m than the petitioners. In my opinion, the petitioners have no right to be considered in counselling in connection with reshuffling of seats, which is made on the basis of merit irrespective of their category. Proportionate reservation has been rightly granted to the non-service OBC female candidates to the extent of 9 seats (25% of total 34 seats). 15. For these reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the to same stands dismissed without any order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******