( 1 ) PETITIONER had applied for consideration of her claim for Special B. T. C course 2004 as Female/scheduled Caste/arts category candidate. Merit of the petitioner was 313. 91. Petitioner was sent for training at District Institute of Education Training, Allahabad. On account of her higher merit she was kept under Female/general/arts category and allocated Fatehpur. Petitioners grievance is that candidates from Female/scheduled Caste/arts category who had less merit qua her they were allocated Allahabad, the place of their choice and as such she also ought to have been allocated Allahabad. As request of petitioner was not being considered, she filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 78571 of 2005 before this Court and this Court asked the authority concerned to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner and thereafter Director of Education (Basic) U. P. Lucknow passed the impugned order which is subject matter of challenge before this Court. ( 2 ) ON presentation of present writ petition before this Court on 24. 03. 2006 following order was passed which is being quoted below: "heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. The petitioner belongs to the scheduled caste female arts category and was selected for undergoing the special B. T. C training 2004. The results were declared and the petitioner on account of higher merit was placed alongwith the candidates of the general category. The placement of such selected candidates has to be made in accordance with the options which are to be exercised under the relevant government order. The petitioner contends that on account of her being placed in the general category as per merit she was deprived of the option to which she was entitled in accordance with category to which she belongs, namely the scheduled caste category. Aggrieved the petitioer approached this Court by filing Writ Petition 78571 of 2005 and this Court on 02. 01. 2006 disposed of the writ petition of the petitioner with a direction to the Director to consider the claim of the petitioner in view of the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Anurag Patel reported in 2005 (9) SCC 742 . 01. 2006 disposed of the writ petition of the petitioner with a direction to the Director to consider the claim of the petitioner in view of the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Anurag Patel reported in 2005 (9) SCC 742 . The impugned order has been passed by the Director recording that the petitioner is not entitled to claim any such benefit on the strength of the decision of the Apex Court in as much the decision of the Apex Court proceeded to decide in respect of the Combined State Services Examination which include different cadres whereas present selections have been held for a single cadre through out the State. Prima facie the said finding is preposterous in as much where there are different cadres even then the Apex Court issued directions for extending the benefit of reservation to the candidates of the reserved category in the event they have been shifted upwards on account of their merit. In the instant case there does not appear any hurdle as the case is of a single cadre and as such there appears to be an inherent contradiction in the findings recorded by the authority concerned. In the opinion of the Court, the reasons given in the impugned order is a ploy to avoid giving effect to the principles laid down and the ration of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Anurag Patel (supra ). Accordingly the respondents are directed to file their affidavit explaining as to how they have distinguished the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Anurag Patel which is binding on them keeping in view the Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid principles laid down in the said decision, are applicable in all public services including the present selections which have been held. The affidavit shall be filed within three weeks. List immediately after the expiry of the three weeks on 17. 04. 2006. " ( 3 ) TILL date in spite of the repeated opportunity having been provided and lastly on 26. 02. 2007, eight weeks and no more time was allowed, no counter affidavit has been filed, as such on the basis of un-controvered facts present writ petition is being decided. 04. 2006. " ( 3 ) TILL date in spite of the repeated opportunity having been provided and lastly on 26. 02. 2007, eight weeks and no more time was allowed, no counter affidavit has been filed, as such on the basis of un-controvered facts present writ petition is being decided. Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that petitioners candidature has been metted with arbitrary treatment, in spite of being higher in merit she has not been given the choicest option which she was entitled as scheduled caste category candidate and as such, her option be accepted, and writ petition be allowed. ( 4 ) LEARNED Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that rightful view has been taken and as such no interference is required. ( 5 ) AFTER respective arguments have been advanced, the view point of Honble Apex Court in the case of Anurag Patel Vs. U. P. Public Service Commission and others reported in 2005 (9) SCC 742 is being again looked into. Honble Apex Court in the aforesaid case has taken the view that where reserved category candidates obtaining selection on the basis of merit ("open candidates") vis-a-vis those obtaining selection only on the basis of reservation ("quota candidates") ranking inter se has to be determined on the basis of their inter se merit and more meritorious amongst them has to be given first choice of posts. Relevant paragraphs 4 to 8 are being quoted below: "4. The petitioners in these writ petitions contended that the authorities, while making appointments, had not strictly followed the instructions issued by the Government. When the selection was made some of the candidates, who belonged to the Backward Classes, got selection in the general category and while making appointments, these candidates for selection to the open merit quota were treated as general candidates and they were appointed on the basis of the rank list prepared in the merit. As against the reserved quota, only those candidates who had obtained the reservation and got entry to the selection were appointed. As against the reserved quota, only those candidates who had obtained the reservation and got entry to the selection were appointed. For example, in the case of U. P. Civil (Executive) Services there were altogether 20 posts, out of which 10 posts were to be filled up by the general category candidates, 4 posts by the Scheduled Caste candidates, 2 posts for Army displaced persons/ handicapped/ Emergency commissioned/short service commissioned officers/ex-Army men, one post of the dependents of freedom fighters of U. P. and 3 posts for the candidates belonging to Backward Classes. This being the top-most post coming under the selection, the authorities should have filled up the post according to the instruction issued by the Government on 19th October, 1992. The instruction was to the following effect: "allocation/selection of the candidates successful in the combined examinations held for more than one service ought to be made treating each service separately. If any candidates belonging to reserved category, succeeds on merits, without availing himself/herself of the facility of relaxation in norms and exemption in age limit prescribed for the general candidates, on the basis of his preference, he will not be adjusted against the vacancy/post of the reserved quota. On the contrary, if any candidate belonging to the reserved category, finds place in the selection list, after having availed himself/herself of the facility of relaxation in norms and exemption in age limit prescribed for the general candidates, on the basis of his preference, he ought to be adjusted against the vacancy/post of the reserved quota. " ( 6 ) IT seems, the U. P. P. S. C. recommended the candidates, as regards the first category i. e. U. P. Civil (Executive) Services as follows, namely:- First 10 candidates were appointed on the open merit and thereafter three seats which were reserved for Backward Classes were filled up by O. B. C. candidates, who secured rank Nos. 38, 62 and 97. The rank list prepared by the U. P. P. S. C. shows that as many as 9 candidates had secured higher rank than the candidate No. 38, namely, Shri Ashok Chandra who got appointment as Deputy Collector and as against candidate Shri Ramesh Chandra Yadav, who got appointment as Deputy Collector, secured only 62nd place in the select list and there were 15 candidates belonging to Backward Classes were above him in the rank list. So also the 97th rank holder who was the petitioner in the writ petition before the High Court and the present appellant in C. A. No. 4794 of 1998 also get appointment as Dy. Collector and there were several other Backward Class candidates in the merit list, who secured higher marks in the selection. This anomaly happened as the candidates above who secured higher marks than the 3rd respondent were adjusted against the vacancies that arose in the general category for various other posts such as Treasury Officers/account Officers in U. P. Finance and Accounts Services, Sales Tax Officers, Asstt. Transport Officers, District Supply Officers etc. The authorities should have prepared the candidates who are to be appointed on general merit as also candidates who are to be appointed as against the reserved vacancies and while making appointments the inter se merit of the reserved candidates should have been considered and they must have been given the option treating each service separately. As this exercise was not followed, less meritorious candidates got appointment to higher posts whereas more meritorious candidates had to be satisfied with posts of lower category. 5. In the matter of admission to the Medical College, the same difficulty was experienced and this Court held in Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y. L. Yamul and others, (1996) 3 SCC 253 , in paragraph 17 of the judgment at page 261 as follows : AIR 1996 SC 1378 : 1996 AIR SCW 986 (Para 17) ". . . 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. 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. The aforesaid objective can be achieved if after finding out the candidates from amongst the reserved category who would otherwise come in the open merit list and then asking their option for admission into the different colleges which have been kept reserved for reserved category and thereafter the cases of less meritorious reserved category candidates should be considered and they be allotted seats in whichever colleges the seats should be available. In other words, while a reserved category candidate entitled to admission on the basis of his merit will have the option of taking admission in the colleges where a specified number of seats have been kept reserved for reserved category but while computing the percentage of reservation he will be deemed to have been admitted as an open category candidate and not as a reserved category candidate. " ( 7 ) THE same question was considered by this Court in State of Bihar and others v. M. Neethi Chandra and others, (1996) 6 SCC 36 , wherein it was held in paragraph 13 as follows : "however, to the extent the meritorious among them are denied the choice of college and subject which they could secure under the rule of reservation, the circular cannot be sustained. The circular, therefore, can be given effect only if the reserved category candidate qualifying on merit with general candidates consents to being considered as a general candidates on merit-cum-choice basis for allotment of college/institution and subject. " ( 8 ) IN the instant case, as noticed earlier, out of 8 petitioners in Writ Petition No. 22753/93, two of them who had secured ranks 13 and 14 in the merit list, were appointed as Sales Tax Officer-II, whereas the persons who secured rank Nos. " ( 8 ) IN the instant case, as noticed earlier, out of 8 petitioners in Writ Petition No. 22753/93, two of them who had secured ranks 13 and 14 in the merit list, were appointed as Sales Tax Officer-II, whereas the persons who secured rank Nos. 38, 72 and 97, ranks lower to them, got appointment as Deputy Collectors and the Division Bench of the High Court held that it is a clear injustice to the persons re meritorious and directed that a list of all selected Backward Class candidates shall be prepared separately including those candidates selected in the general category and their appointments to the posts shall be made strictly in accordance with merit as per the select list and preference of a person higher in the select list will be seen first and appointment given accordingly, while preference of a person lower in the list will be seen only later. We do not think any error or illegality in the direction issued by the Division Bench of the High Court. 6. Mr. R. N. Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Commission submitted that in case any re-arrangement is made, the same persons who had already been appointed are likely to lose their posts. Going by the counter-statement filed by the State in the Writ Petition No. 22753/93 it appears that altogether 358 candidates were appointed and 47 candidates belonging to Backward Classes were filled up by posts earmarked for Backward Classes. Amongst the 358 candidates those who secured higher marks than the cut-off mark for the general category also must have got selection in the general category even though they belong to the Backward Classes. If these candidates who got selection in the general category are allowed to exercise preference and then appointed accordingly the candidates who were appointed in the reserved categories had to be pushed down in their posts and the vacancies thus left by thegeneral category candidates belonging to Backward Classes could be filled up by the persons who are really appointed against the quota reserved for Backward Classes. There will not be any change in the total number of posts filled up either by the general category candidates or by the reserved category candidates. 7. There will not be any change in the total number of posts filled up either by the general category candidates or by the reserved category candidates. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the Commission further pointed out that all these officers have been working against the posts since the last 11 years and that many of these affected parties were not made parties to the writ petition and if any re-allocation of posts is made at this distance of time it will cause injustice to the affected parties. It is also pointed out by the respondents counsel that in the writ petition filed by one Amrendra Pratap Singh i. e. Writ Petition No. 32346 before the Allahabad High Court, an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner therein and the Division Bench directed that the appointment would be subject to the result of the writ petition and this order continued for some period and all the candidates were informed that their appointments would be subject to the result of the writ petition. Although that writ petition under review was dismissed, the candidates who were appointed were aware of the proceedings pending before the High Court. By the impugned order the High Court only directed re-allocation of the posts according to the merit prepared in the select list. The decision rendered in Writ Petition No. 46029 of 1993, dated 15th April, 1998 was followed in the decision in Writ Petition No. 22753 of 1993. 8. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in these appeals. The appeals are dismissed accordingly. However, the State is directed to carry out the exercise of re-allocation within a period of three months. The affected officers shall be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and to the extent possible the State shall given accommodation to such officers. " here in the present case factual position which is emerging is to the effect that petitioner had applied for consideration of her candidature from Female/scheduled Caste/arts category candidate and she secured 313. 91 quality point marks and as her merit position was much higher as such she has been treated as General Category candidate. It has been categorically stated by petitioner, that allotment of home district was automatic in case candidate was having merit for the same, and apart from the same three options had been exercised namely District Kaushambi, Pratapgarh and Fatehpur. It has been categorically stated by petitioner, that allotment of home district was automatic in case candidate was having merit for the same, and apart from the same three options had been exercised namely District Kaushambi, Pratapgarh and Fatehpur. The first candidate who was placed at serial no. 1 and had 301. 06 quality point marks namely Anita Bharti from Female/scheduled Caste/arts category was allocated home district i. e. Allahabad. Last selected candidate from Female/scheduled Caste/arts category candidate namely Sushila had secured 293. 31 quality point marks and she has been placed at serial no. 26 and home district has been allocated to her with Code No. 31. Once candidates who had applied for consideration of their claim from Female/scheduled Caste/arts category have been given placement as per their choice i. e. their respective home district then there is no reason to deny and deprive the petitioner her place of choice merely because on account of higher merit, she was treated as Female/general/arts category candidate. Ranking has to be given due respect on the basis of her merit and more meritorious amongst them has to be given first choice of posts. In the present case ground on which claim of the petitioner has been non-suited is that present selection is in respect of single cadre. The view taken in unsustainable by all logics as when said principles have been made applicable, when there are different cadres, by giving due weight to merit of reserve category candidate then same principles will apply with full force, even when there is single cadre. Placement of selected candidate has to be done as per the option exercised. Petitioner cannot be put to disadvantageous position, on account of higher merit and petitioner in all eventuality has to be given first choice of post. The claim of the petitioner is clearly covered by the Anurag Patel case (supra ). ( 9 ) CONSEQUENTLY order impugned rejecting the representation of the petitioner is hereby quashed. Director of Education (Basic) U. P. Lucknow is directed to pass consequential order within next three weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order and placement of the petitioner be made accordingly. Subject to above direction present writ petition is allowed and disposed of. .