Judgment By means of this petition, moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 22-06-2006 (Annexure -7 to the petition), passed by Additional District Education Officer (Basic), Udham Singh Nagar, whereby the petitioner has been denied the appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu) even after getting selected in the merit list. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the petition are that the petitioner possesses necessary qualifications for the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu) in a Junior Basic School. He had obtained certificate of passing Adeeb-E-Kamil examination from Jamia, Urdu Aligarh University in the year 1994. He also holds Moallim-E.Urdu training certificate from said University, which is alleged to be a recognized qualification equivalent to B.T.C. It is further stated in the petition that the petitioner is a permanent resident of District Udham Singh Nagar and belongs to Other Backward Castes (herein after referred as O.B.C.) category. The Government issued order dated 27-01-2004, for fulfillment of 217 vacant posts of Assistant Teacher (Urdu) for Primary Junior Basic Schools. The petitioner was one of the candidate, who applied for the same and appeared in the test conducted for the purpose. A list of selected candidates was prepared under Rule 17 of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. The petitioner's case is that he got selected and his name figured among the selected candidates in general category. But the respondent refused appointment to the petitioner on the ground that he was applicant of O.B.C. category. Alleging that the appointment has been refused to the petitioner in an illegal and arbitrary manner, this petition is filed. 4. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents for the reasons best known to them. 5. Before further discussions, it is pertinent to quote here the impugned order, which is Annexure-7 to the writ petition, passed by respondent No.1: Aforesaid mentioned impugned order itself shows that what the petitioner is stating in the petition is true. Apart from this, Annexure-5, the result declared and published in the newspaper, also corroborates the fact that the petitioner stood at serial number 8 in order of merit in the list of the selected candidates and his name was shown in the general category. 6. Apart from this, Annexure-5, the result declared and published in the newspaper, also corroborates the fact that the petitioner stood at serial number 8 in order of merit in the list of the selected candidates and his name was shown in the general category. 6. Learned Standing Counsel failed to explain if the petitioner applied in the O.B.C. category then why his name was shown in the general category if there was any bar for the candidate of said category to be considered in the general category. Otherwise also, there cannot be a bar for a candidate of reserve category to qualify in the general category. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner's marks were less than any of the candidates, who figured in the list of the selected candidates of other backward castes. That being so, either the petitioner should have been treated on top of the list of the O.B.C. candidates or must have been given the appointment as a general candidate. 7. In R.K. Sabharwal and others Vs. State of Punjab and others (1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases Pg. 745, at page 750, it is held that "the reserve category candidates can compete for the non-reserved post and in the event of their appointment to the said posts their number cannot be added and taken into consideration for working out percentage of reservation." Apart from this, sub-section (6) of Section 3 of U.P. Public Service (Reservation of Schedule Castes, Schedule Tribes and other backward classes) Act, 1994, provides as under: "(6) If a person belonging to any of the category mentioned in sub-section (1) gets selected on the basis of merit in an open competition with general candidates, he shall not be adjusted against the vacancies reserved for said category in sub-section (1)." Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, provides that the percentage of the reservation for schedule castes schedule tribes and other backward classes. The said Act is applicable to the State of Uttaranchal, as modified by it. 8. For the reasons, as discussed above, keeping in view of the principle of law laid down by the Apex Court and also the relevant provision, quoted above, the impugned order dated 22-06-2006 (copy of Annexure-7 to the writ petition), passed by respondent No.1, declining appointment to the petitioner is not only illegal but arbitrary too. 8. For the reasons, as discussed above, keeping in view of the principle of law laid down by the Apex Court and also the relevant provision, quoted above, the impugned order dated 22-06-2006 (copy of Annexure-7 to the writ petition), passed by respondent No.1, declining appointment to the petitioner is not only illegal but arbitrary too. The same is liable to be quashed. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22-06-2006, passed by respondent No.1, declining appointment to the petitioner is quashed. The writ petition is allowed with the direction that the concerned authorities shall provide appointment to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu), as per the Rules.