Judgment : Petitioner and 3rd respondent, who are members of the scheduled caste community, were applicants before the 2nd respondent for selection to the post of Junior Clerks. The selection list was prepared in the year 2000 and the same was stated to be valid only till 01/02/2003. Petitioner and 3rd respondent were first and second rank holders among the candidates from the reserve category. Since appointments were not made for long, 3rd respondent represented to the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who vide Exts. P4 & P5 directed the Bank to give appointment, if he was found eligible based on the reservation policy. Since no action was taken by 2nd respondent, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition. 2. The case of 2nd respondent is that among 44 persons in the service of the Bank, there are already 4 persons from the scheduled caste/scheduled tribe community and therefore 10% reservation is satisfied. Consequently, there is no need to grant reservation in the present selection is the case of 2nd respondent. However, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that reservation at 10% has to be provided to members of the scheduled caste/scheduled tribe community at each time of selection and under the pattern of filling up of vacancies 4th and 12th places should be given to members of scheduled caste community. 3. There is no dispute that 15 persons were appointed from the selection made in 2000 and none of them is from SC/ST community. Therefore, no one was taken from the reservation quota in the course of appointments made in 2000. The question to be considered is whether the availability of 10% of the members of the staff from the SC/ST community will justify 2nd respondent from declining to follow the reservation policy for appointment. In the first place the second respondent has not demonstrated before this Court that the four persons in service belonging to SC/ST community were recruited based on reservation. If they were appointed on merit along with others, or were recruited before the reservation policy came into force, then the Bank is not entitled to raise this plea at all. Besides this, I am in agreement with the argument of petitioner and 3rd respondent that reservation cannot be denied for fresh appointments merely because some candidates from the SC/ST community are already in the service of the Bank. Besides this, I am in agreement with the argument of petitioner and 3rd respondent that reservation cannot be denied for fresh appointments merely because some candidates from the SC/ST community are already in the service of the Bank. The 2nd respondent has not furnished even the details of the persons from scheduled caste/scheduled tribe community in service and the dates of their appointment. In any case this has no relevance because reservation policy has to be followed whenever fresh recruitment is made. The next objection raised by 2nd respondent is that the claim by petitioner and 3rd respondent are belated and the list is no longer valid. I do not think, 2nd respondent is entitled to plead limitation against a claim of this nature because since the appointments were made without following the reservation policy, the said appointments are obviously illegal. Since 15 posts were filled up, petitioner and 3rd respondent were entitled to be appointed. Consequently, I direct 2nd respondent to absorb petitioner and 3rd respondent in the post of Junior Clerk in the service immediately on production of a copy of this judgment. However, I make it clear that this should not lead to termination of any person already appointed, and petitioner and 3rd respondent also will not be entitled to claim any seniority with reference to any anterior date because they did not take up the matter before the Court in time. The Joint Registrar will grant approval for increasing the staff strength, if it is required to appoint petitioner and 3rd respondent. The writ petition is allowed as above.