JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition the petitioners mainly seek the following reliefs : "(i) the select list dated 30.12.2001 as published on the Internet wherein women candidates have been selected in excess of their reserved quota, be declared bad in law to that extent and the said seats be directed to be filled from the male candidates who had already appeared before the Interview Board and have secured the minimum qualifying marks and if the petitioners have secured the said marks, the respondents be directed to place the petitioners in the select list and give them appointment in RJS, with all consequential benefits; (ii) further direct the respondent RPSC to fill the unfilled 8 SC posts from candidates who have been called for interview and possess the minimum qualifying marks as per merit and if the petitioners fall in the said merit, the appointment orders be issued in their favour along with all consequential benefits." 2. The facts giving rise to the petition are as follows : The respondent No. 1, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, by advertisement dated 17.5.2001, invited applications for filling up 116 posts of Munsif & Judicial Magistrates under various categories. The category-wise division of 116 posts were as follows : General SC ST OBC Male 48 15 11 19 Female 11 4 3 5 The last date for submission of application forms was notified as 30.6.2001. Subsequently, this date was extended up to 31.7.2001. 3. While the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and 6 to 10 applied under the General Category, i.e. to say under the open merit category, petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 applied under the open merit category as well as under the OBC Category. Candidates, including the petitioners appeared in the written test held by the Pubic Service Commission on 16th and 17th of September, 2001. On 20.11.2001, a list of 302 candidates, declared successful in the written examination was notified. The petitioners also figured in that list. They, along with other successful examinees, were called for the interview. After the interviews, 97 candidates were selected as against 116 posts, and the select-list was notified on 30.12.2001. The petitioners, however, did not figure in the select-list. Aggrieved by their non-selection, the petitioners, on 5.6.2002, gave a notice to the respondents, making demand for justice. They, along with other successful examinees, were called for the interview. After the interviews, 97 candidates were selected as against 116 posts, and the select-list was notified on 30.12.2001. The petitioners, however, did not figure in the select-list. Aggrieved by their non-selection, the petitioners, on 5.6.2002, gave a notice to the respondents, making demand for justice. Since the petitioners did not receive a favourable response from the respondents, they filed the instant writ petition. 4. The only grievance highlighted before us by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the women candidates have been selected in excess of the quota prescribed for them, and in case they were selected as per the quota, the petitioners would have found their place in the select-list. In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners, it is necessary to notice that under R.9(3) of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955 (for short 'the Rules of 1955'), reservation for women candidates has been provided to the extent of 20%. The rule reads as under : "Reservation for women candidates shall be 20% category-wise in direct recruitment. In the event of non- availability of the eligible and suitable women candidates in a particular year, the vacancies so reserved for them shall be filled in accordance with the normal procedure and such vacancies shall not be carried forward to the subsequent year and the reservation shall be treated as horizontal reservation i.e. the reservation of women candidates shall be adjusted proportionately in the respective category to which the women candidates belongs." The aforesaid rule was subsequently amended to provide for 30% reservation category-wise for women candidates for posts to be filled-up by direct recruitment. It may be pointed out that in the advertisement issued by the Public Service Commission dated 17.5.2001, seats under the various categories have been divided between male and female candidates. There cannot be any reservation for male candidates under the General Category, as this would be hit by Articles 14 and 16(1) of Constitution. Besides, no reservation for General Category has been provided for male candidates under the Rules of 1955. The word "male" has been used in the advertisement to include candidates of both the sexes. 5. We may now mention the details relating to the number of women candidates selected under the various categories and heads. Besides, no reservation for General Category has been provided for male candidates under the Rules of 1955. The word "male" has been used in the advertisement to include candidates of both the sexes. 5. We may now mention the details relating to the number of women candidates selected under the various categories and heads. Against 48 unreserved seats for General Category Candidates, 11 women candidates were selected on the basis of inter se merit of the candidates. Besides, 3 women candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste Category and 3 women candidates belonging to OBC Category were selected on the basis of inter se merit of the male and female candidates who had applied against the Scheduled Caste and OBC categories. Thus, 17 women candidates were selected under the General Category (unreserved category), Scheduled Caste and OBC Categories on the basis of their inter se merit amongst the candidates, both male and female. That apart, 11 women candidates in the General Category and 5 women candidates in the OBC Category were selected as against 11 and 5 reserved seats meant exclusively for females. It needs to be pointed out that in Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Categories, no women candidate were selected against the seats reserved for female candidates. Thus, against 23 seats reserved for women candidates only 16 women candidates were selected. Altogether 33 women candidates were selected against General Category and seats reserved for women candidates in their respective categories. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the women candidates could be selected to the extent of the reservation provided for them in the various categories meant for female candidates, and they could not be selected under the Male Category. The learned counsel for the petitioners is labouring under a mistaken belief that the advertisement makes a reservation in favour of the male candidates. As already pointed out, no reservation could be made exclusively for male candidates. Reservation in the case of women candidates has been made in view of the fact that there is inadequate representation of women in the Rajasthan Judicial Service. The reservation has been made, to remove inequality and disparity between the sexes in the context of employment in the Rajasthan Judicial Service. Clause (3) of Article 15 specifically provides that nothing in Article 15 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children. The reservation has been made, to remove inequality and disparity between the sexes in the context of employment in the Rajasthan Judicial Service. Clause (3) of Article 15 specifically provides that nothing in Article 15 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children. Articles 15 and 16 are instances and facets of the 'right of equality', which is enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. While Article 15(3) is of general application, Article 16(1) operates in the filed of public employment. It does not mean that Article 15(3) goes out of operation insofar as matters of public employment relating to women are concerned. Article 14 read with Articles 15(3) and 16(1), in order to provide equality of opportunity to women, empower the State to make reservation in appointments or posts in favour of women. 7. In Indra Sawhney & others v. Union of India & others, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 , the supreme court recognised that Article 16(1) is a facet of Article 14, and just as Article 14 permits the State to make reasonable classification in favour of a class or category of persons to achieve equality, so does Article 16(1). The Supreme court went on to hold that a classification may involve reservation of seats or vacancies, as the case may be. In other words, in clause (1) of Article 16, posts can be reserved in favour of a class of citizens. The supreme court rejected the argument that clause (1) of Article 16 does not permit reservation in appointments or posts. It also held that Article 16(4) is not an exception to Article 16(1) and is not exhaustive of the categories, in favour of whom reservation can be made in the posts. Therefore, it seems to us that the categories which are not covered by Article 16(4), which require reservation, can be covered under Article 16(1). In fact the learned counsel for the petitioners has not argued that the State was not empowered to make reservation of posts in favour of women. 8. In Indra Sawhney's case (supra) the observations made by the supreme court, in para 811 of the judgment, are telling in nature and require to be quoted "...the reservations under Article 16(4) do not operate like a communal reservation. 8. In Indra Sawhney's case (supra) the observations made by the supreme court, in para 811 of the judgment, are telling in nature and require to be quoted "...the reservations under Article 16(4) do not operate like a communal reservation. It may well happen that some members belonging to, say, Scheduled Castes get selected in the open competition field on the basis of their own merit; they will not be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes; they will be treated as open competition candidates." The supreme court in aforesaid decision perceived two types of reservations viz. 'vertical reservations' and 'horizontal reservations'. In this regard the supreme court held as follows : "......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 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 SC category he will be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustments; similarly, if he belongs to open competition (OC) category, he will be placed in that category 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..." Therefore, the reservation for women candidates under the Rules of 1955 provides for horizontal reservations. There is no bar for women candidates to compete on the basis of their own merit while applying under a particular category. In case they get selected on their own merit in the open competition category, they will not be counted against the quota fixed for them in the reserved categories. There is no bar for women candidates to compete on the basis of their own merit while applying under a particular category. In case they get selected on their own merit in the open competition category, they will not be counted against the quota fixed for them in the reserved categories. We are supported, in this view, by a judgment of the supreme court in R.K. Sabharwal & others v. State of Punjab & others, (1995) 2 SCC 745 : "...On the other hand the reserve category candidates can compete for the non-reserve posts and in the event of their appointment to the said posts their number cannot be added and taken into consideration for working out the percentage of reservation. Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India permits the State Government to make any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any Backward Class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State is not adequately represented in the Services under the State. It is, therefore, incumbent on the State Government to reach a conclusion that the Backward Class/Classes for which the reservation is made is not adequately represented in the State Services." (emphasis supplied) Again in Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul & others, (1996) 3 SCC 253 (para 17 page 261), the supreme court relying on the decision rendered in Indra Sawhney' case (supra), held as under : "...In view of the legal position enunciated by this Court in the aforesaid cases the conclusion is irresistible that a student who is entitled to be admitted on the basis of merit though belonging to a reserved category cannot be considered to be admitted against seats reserved for reserved category. But at the same time the provisions should be so made that it will not work out to the disadvantage of such candidate and he may not be placed at a more disadvantageous position than the other less meritorious reserved category candidates..." Yet in another case Union of India & others v. Virpal Singh Chauhan & others, (1995) 6 SCC 684 , the supreme court taking a similar view, held as follows : "...While determining the said number, the candidates belonging to the reserved category but selected/promoted on their own merit (and not by virtue of rule of reservation) shall not be counted as reserved category candidates." 9. Taking cue from the aforesaid judgments of the supreme court, it is clear that women candidates who get selected in the open competition field on the basis of their own merit, will not be counted against the quota fixed for them in seats or posts reserved for them in different categories. Thus, the argument of the petitioners must be rejected as the supreme court has clearly enunciated that the reserved category candidates are entitled to compete for the non-reserved posts, and once selected to the said posts, their number cannot be added and taken into consideration for computing the percentage of reservation. The same logic would apply in the case of female candidates selected under reserved categories, after competing with the male candidates, on one hand, and competing exclusively with candidates of their own sex, on the other hand. 10. As far as the second relief claimed in the prayer clause is concerned, the petitioners can not be considered against the posts reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates, as they do not belong to the said class. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.Writ petition dismissed-appointment to women candidates not found in excess-petitioners not being s.c. candidates cannot be considered for posts reserved for s.c. candidates. *******