JUDGMENT : A.K. Yog, J. Pawan Kumar Tiwari, Petitioner, has approached this Court by filing present petition under Article 226, Constitution of India and prays for following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the advertisement dated 31.7.1999 for the Uttar Pradesh Nyayik Seva Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination, 1999 (Annexure-7) published in the daily news paper "Dainik Jagran" by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, Allahabad, upto it relates with the vacancies arose in between the years, 1991 to 1997. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents not to fill up the vacancies arose during the years 1991 to 1997 by any subsequent selection procedure except on the basis of the Uttar Pradesh Nyayik Seva Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination, 1997 and the ratio of judgments and orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of U.P. Vs. Rafiquddin and Others, AIR 1988 SC 162 and Miss Neelima Shangla, Ph. D. Candidate Vs. State of Haryana and Others, AIR 1987 SC 169 . (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to review the fixation of seats in favour of the candidates belonging to the reserved category which may not exceed than 50% at any rate and modify the selection list accordingly. (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to review the selection list arising out of the Uttar Pradesh Nyayik Seva Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination, 1997, by reserving one seat in favour of the candidates belonging to the reserved category u/s 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service (Reservation for the Physically Handicapped, Dependents of the Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen of the Military) Act, 1993 in view of the reservation policy and the ratio of the judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Miss Indira Saheny v. Union of India. 2. 2. Before dealing with the merits of the case, it may be noted that the learned Counsel representing the Petitioner has made a statement at the bar that reliefs contained in Sub-clauses (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) in the prayer clause are not being pressed and that the Petitioner confines his claim on the argument that exclusion of the name of the Petitioner by resorting to wrong calculation while earmarking quota for general category treating even fraction less than 0.5 as one by resorting to rule of Rounding Off, in absence of Statutory Rule or Government order is nothing but arbitrary, illegal and unjustifiable. 3. Facts of the case are not in dispute, which are summarised as follows: U.P. Public Service Commission/Respondent No. 2 issued advertisement dated 30.12.1997 ; invited applications for preparing merit list for forwarding it to the U.P. Government for filling up the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) under U.P. Nyayik Seva Niyamavali, 1951, as amended upto date. 4. Petitioner, who possessed requisite qualifications, apart from other candidates submitted application and appeared in the examination as well as interview held by the U.P. Public Service Commission. 5. We directed the Commission to place original record which was placed before us. Name of the Petitioner, on the basis of exclusive merit finds place at serial No. 37. However, after adjusting the candidates from reserved category, he was down graded to serial No. 44. 6. Sri Pushpendra Singh, advocate has placed before us original letter dated 25th November, 1997. Para 2 of the said letter providing splitting of total 93 vacancies, as follows : I II III S. No. Category Reservation % age No. of Posts Worked out of Total 93 Posts No. of Posts allocated by Respondents (on Rounding Off) 1 Scheduled Castes (S.C.) 21% 9.53 2 Scheduled Tribes (S.T.) 02% 1.86 21.39 - 2 3 Other Backward Classes (O.B.C.) 27% 25.11 26 4 General 50% 46.50 46 Total 93 Posts 7. Government Letter dated 25.11.1997 produced by the Committee of Management shows the permissible percentage of reservation quota. 8. No statutory Rule or Government order is brought to our notice or on record of the case (in spite of pointed query of the Court) to show permissibility of adopting principle of Rounding Off. 9. Only Government order, placed before us is with reference to 20% reservation for women in Government establishments. 8. No statutory Rule or Government order is brought to our notice or on record of the case (in spite of pointed query of the Court) to show permissibility of adopting principle of Rounding Off. 9. Only Government order, placed before us is with reference to 20% reservation for women in Government establishments. This Government order dated August 13, 1999, placed before us by the standing counsel, representing Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 referring to women reservation of 20% provides for Rounding Off, but it contemplates that half or more than half (Ardhansh) can be computed as one in case of residue vacant seat of the concerned category in the preceding year. 10. The said Government Order (dealing with 20% women reservation in Government establishment) is not relevant lays down that 'Ardhansh', half or more than half, be Rounded Off and taken as 'one'. It does not provide that 'fraction' less than half be treated as 'one' or 0.5 or more be ignored completely by adopting principle of 'Rounding Off'. 11. Accepted methodology of computation is that a 'fraction' less than half is to be ignored and a 'fraction', half or more, be taken as one. 12. Assuming general rule of Rounding Off could be applied in the facts of instant case, but by no stretch of imagination, fraction less than 'half', could be treated as 'one'. Rounding Off does not permit 'fraction' less than half to be treated as 'one'. It is not disputed at the Bar that the figure of 25.11 (in the above chart) (of 93 vacancies), has been rounded of and treated as 26'. Further, 50% general category (which works out to 46.5) has been taken as 46', by ignoring fraction of 0.5' (Ardhansh). Thus, by treating 25.11 as 26, Respondents allotted 47 posts to the reserved categories, details given in the Table reproduced above. In the category of 'Freedom Fighters' and Ex-Service Men two and one (total three) posts have been earmarked as horizontally reserved. By inserting these reserved candidates (of Freedom Fighter and Ex-Service Men) into general quota of 46 posts on the basis of horizontal reservation, 3 candidates on merit list in General category have been pushed out of Selection Zone. Incidentally, Petitioner is on the top of these three ousted candidates. 13. In our opinion, whether it is vertical or horizontal reservation, ultimately it is at cost of merit. Incidentally, Petitioner is on the top of these three ousted candidates. 13. In our opinion, whether it is vertical or horizontal reservation, ultimately it is at cost of merit. It is high time, in the changed scenario, the issue be reviewed and deal in the light of past experience. It is necessary that constitutional mandate be given precedence and provision for reservation be made time bound, as also conceived by Constitutional framers. 14. Even a good law of today in changed social context, become an irrelevant and bad by passage of time. 15. The Respondents have committed manifest error apparent on the face of record inasmuch as they have calculated total number of vacancies general quota as 46, illegally and arbitrarily, whereas it should be 47. 16. The Petitioner being the next candidate on merit in general category, deserves to be appointed, particularly when the Petitioner had obtained interim mandamus directing Respondents not to make recruitment which was, however, vacated by this Court vide judgment and order dated 19.10.2000 (Annexure-2 to the supplementary-affidavits sworn on 16th April, 2003) ; relevant extract of the aforesaid order reads: In the circumstances, we find no justification to allow the interim order to continue. Accordingly, the interim order dated 21.9.1999 is vacated without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Petitioner. The writ petition is, however, directed to be listed in normal course. 17. Consequently, we direct the Respondents to take steps and ensure to apprise the Petitioner within two months of receipt of certified copy of this judgment on the basis of U.P. Nyayik Seva Examination, 1997, provided Petitioner files certified copy of this judgment before the concerned authorities within/on or before September 30, 2003. We further provide that the Petitioner shall not be entitled to back wages etc., he shall, however, be treated notionally appointed with effect from the date his batch mates have been given appointment and notional period shall count for the purposes of fixing salary, annual increment etc., and for post retiral benefits in future. 18. Petition allowed. 19. No order as to costs.