Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. This review application has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 25th Feb., 2008, passed by this Court in W.P. No.39171/02. The said case was dismissed having noticed the stand taken by the respondent that the name of the petitioner was appearing at the 8th rank as per the mark secured and that the petitioner did not come within the zone of appointment against reserved category or unreserved post. 2. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while relied on “Rank List” as was prepared at the time of selection, wherein the following rank was shown :- It was submitted that the first three persons on their merit were rightly appointed against the merit post. Those whose names have been shown as 5, 6 and 7, out of them S. Mohana Kumari, who has obtained 7th rank in the rank list could not have been selected against the post reserved for Other Backward Category (OBC), as she was not OBC as on the date of application, but was a Most Backward Category candidate (MBC) and was declared OBC vide G.O. No.13/202/Wel. (SW-II) dated 12th March, 2002, issued from the office of the Chief Secretary (Welfare), Government of Pondicherry. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. It is settled law that under Article 16 (4), it is always open to the State to make provision for reservation of appointment or post in favour of any backward class of citizens, which includes Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. As per the said provision, backward class other than SC and ST are commonly known as Other Backward Class. In some of the State, OBC have also been sub-categorized as Backward Category and Most Backward Category., but the question of such sub-categorization of OBC could be considered only if, in the matter of reservation and roster they are shown separately. 4. In the present case, it is not in dispute that in the roster, the post kept reserved for SC, SC and OBC. It is also not in dispute that only six posts were notified and as per roster 3 of them were to be filled up on merit (unreserved post) and 3 were to be filled up from amongst OBC, i.e., those backward category, who do not belong to SC or ST category. It is also not in dispute that only six posts were notified and as per roster 3 of them were to be filled up on merit (unreserved post) and 3 were to be filled up from amongst OBC, i.e., those backward category, who do not belong to SC or ST category. Three posts having reserved for OBC, we are of the opinion that both backward category and most backward category were entitled for appointment against those reserved posts, no sub category having shown in the matter of roster. 5. We find no merit in this review application and it is accordingly dismissed. But there shall be no order as to costs.