Per Hakim Imtiyaz Hussain, J. 1. These Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the judgment/ order dated 20th July 2002 passed in SWP nos. 1814/2001, 2589/2000, 300/2001, 823/2002, 3037/2001 & OWP no.354/2001. 2. A common question arises for determination in all these appeals. The facts are similar and the matter was considered and disposed of by the learned Single Judge by a common judgment dated 20th July 2002, hence all these appeals were taken up and heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The basic facts which are not in dispute, are as under: On 10th February, 1999 an advertisement was issued by the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (for short the Commission) for holding J&K Combined Services Competitive Examination. Last date for receipt of application forms was fixed as 16th March, 1999. In the notification total number of vacancies was not notified but it was stated that the same will be notified separately. Later on vide another notification dated 15th May, 2000, the Commission notified five vacancies under junior scale and 204 vacancies in other services for the said examination. The break-up under various categories was as under:- "JR.SCALE Open RBA SC ST SLC LAC Total 03 01 01 - - - 05 OTHER SERVICES Open RBA SC ST SLC LAC Total 108 44 25 20 - 07 204" 4. After the process of selection started, the petitioners in all the above mentioned writ petitions also applied and participated in the process. They qualified written examination and were therefore, asked to appear in the interview also. On completion of the process the Commission made selection on the basis of which appointments were made by the respondents. The petitioners however did not figure in the list of successful candidates. All the petitioners belong to weak and under privileged class commonly known as Social Castes (OSC). They state that in terms of Rule-10 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 1994 (for short the Reservation Rules), 2% reservation is provided for OSC so four posts out of 204 posts notified should have been reserved for the said category. Their grievance is that the respondents did not provide any post under the said category in the notification dated 15th May, 2000 and did not select any candidate from the said category. They allege that since they belong to the said category there right has been violated. Their grievance is that the respondents did not provide any post under the said category in the notification dated 15th May, 2000 and did not select any candidate from the said category. They allege that since they belong to the said category there right has been violated. They challenged the selection and appointments made by the respondents and prayed for their selection and appointment under the said category in terms of the Reservation Rules. 5. In reply to the petition, the Respondents stated that reservations made under the Reservation Rules are to be provided service-wise. The Combined Services Competitive Examination was conducted for about 18 services. The vacancy position notified vide notification dated 15th May 2000 shows the vacancies as available in various services, as under:- "1.Junior KAS Total 05 posts Open merit 03 posts Reserved categories 02 posts Break-up of vacancies for reserved categories Backward areas 01 post Scheduled caste 01 post Total 02 posts. 2. J&K Police (Gazetted) Service Total 54 posts Open Merit 30 posts Reserved categories 24 posts Break up of vacancies for reserved categories Backward areas 11 posts Scheduled caste 06 posts Scheduled tribe 05 posts Line of Actual control 02 posts Total 24 posts 3. J&K Revenue (Gazetted) Service Total 31 posts Open merit 18 posts Reserved categories 13 posts Break up of vacancies for reserved categories Backward areas 6 posts Scheduled caste 3 posts Scheduled Tribe 3 posts Line of Actual Control 1 post Total 13 posts 4. J&K Secretariat (Gazetted) Service Total 3 posts Open merit 1 post Reserved categories 2 posts Break up of vacancies for reserved categories Backward areas 1 post Scheduled caste 1 post Total 2 posts." 6. The respondents state that 2% reservation as provided by Rule 10 of the Reservation Rules is to be read alongwith Rule 14 and while working out vacancy position category-wise, each service is to be taken into consideration and reservation is to be provided to various categories on that basis only. The vacancy position of services was such that no post became available at all for OSC category. 7. Learned Single Judge considered the matter and by means of judgment dated 20th July 2002, which is impugned in the present appeals, allowed the writ petitions. The Court held that the concept of reservation under Rule 10 is independent of what is contained in Rule 14. 7. Learned Single Judge considered the matter and by means of judgment dated 20th July 2002, which is impugned in the present appeals, allowed the writ petitions. The Court held that the concept of reservation under Rule 10 is independent of what is contained in Rule 14. Rule 14 deals with roster points to be maintained in each service, class, category or grade in the services. There is requirement to maintain a permanent roster. This has nothing to do with the reservation. As and when vacancies arise, then the roster is to be operated upon. Learned Judge further held that number of vacancies which are supposed to go to reserved category would depend upon roster point determined as per permanent roster to be maintained under Rule 14. The Court, therefore, directed the respondents to re-consider the issue in light of the observations made by the court. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the State has filed the present appeals. The ground taken before the Learned Single Judge is reiterated by the State in the present appeals. The contention of the State is that the reservation in terms of the Section-10 of the Reservation Rules is to be given to a particular service and since the Combined Services Competitive Examination was meant for about 18 services, while working out the vacancy position due to each category, the vacancy as existed in the service had to be taken into consideration. The respondents are aggrieved of the observations of learned Single Judge that the concept of reservation under Rule-10 is independent of what is contained in Rule-14. 9. The petitioners in the writ petitions (respondents herein) state that the learned Single Judge has considered rival contentions of the parties and by a well reasoned and detailed judgment, allowed the writ petitions. Once the reservation has been prescribed in the statutory rules, it is the solemn duty of the State to grant benefit of reservation to the persons for whom the reservation has been made in the statutory rules. The State has granted the benefit of reservation to all other categories except OSCs. The State in the circumstance cannot be allowed to deny the benefit of reservations to the writ petitioners. 10. Heard. We have considered the matter. 11. Learned Advocate General, strenuously urged that the learned Single Judge has not properly interpreted and applied Rules 10 and 14 of the Reservation Rules. The State in the circumstance cannot be allowed to deny the benefit of reservations to the writ petitioners. 10. Heard. We have considered the matter. 11. Learned Advocate General, strenuously urged that the learned Single Judge has not properly interpreted and applied Rules 10 and 14 of the Reservation Rules. Reservation Rules provide reservation to various services, classes, categories and while working out the vacancies available to such category, the strength of each service is to be taken into consideration and the vacancy available for a category is to be worked out for each service separately. In the present case, the State, according to the learned Advocate General has rightly not given any post to OSC for the reason that in none of the 18 services, any vacancy was available to such a category in view of the roster maintained by Rule 14 of the Reservation Rules. Learned Advocate General has relied on Bharat Hari Singhania & ors. v. Comm. Of Wealth Tax & ors. 1994 SCC(Supp.)(3) 46, State of U.P v. Harish Chandra AIR 1996 SC 2173 and Fayaz Ahmad Panchoo v. State 2003 (1) SLJ 15. 12. Per contra, Mr. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner in SWP no. 823/2002 referred to para-3 of the objections filed by the respondent-State of J&K in OWP no.354/2001, Manjeet Rai v. Public Service Commission & ors. In these objections, contends learned counsel, the State has admitted that till 1999 a single roster was maintained for all the combined services and it was only in the year 2000 that a decision was taken by the Government that separate rosters be prepared for each service. Learned Counsel submits that this admission of the respondents would show that in case of the present selection, the combined roster was maintained as such, the vacancy position in respect of various categories out of 204 posts was to be worked out on that basis alone. 13. On consideration of the matter, we find due force in the submissions. 14. Learned Counsel submits that this admission of the respondents would show that in case of the present selection, the combined roster was maintained as such, the vacancy position in respect of various categories out of 204 posts was to be worked out on that basis alone. 13. On consideration of the matter, we find due force in the submissions. 14. Para-3 of the objections filed by the respondent-State of J&K in OWP no.354/2001, Manjeet Rai v. Public Service Commission & ors., reads as under:- "till 1999 a single roster was maintained for all the combined services and it was only in the year 2000 that a decision was taken by the Government that separate rosters be prepared for each combined service which was found to be necessary according to the Reservation Rules. A total of 209 posts were referred to the PSC for making selections indicating service-wise break-up as also the break-up of posts to be reserved for each reserved category in each service. Since the first roster point in respect of social caste category falls at roster point 49, it was only in the J&K Police (Gazetted) Service, where a total of 54 vacancies were available that any post could be allocated to the social caste category. However, only 5 posts against the schedule caste category were ordered to be filed up whereas the post against the social caste category could not, because of inadvertence, directed to be filled up. In the process, the selection process against the advertised and notified reserved category posts has been completed by the PSC. It has, however, been decided by the Government that the non-notified vacancy against the social caste category would be re-advertised in the next selection. The State Government is committed to implement SRO-126 in its letter and spirit. As and when the vacancies are so notified against the social caste posts, the petitioner would be at liberty to compete for the same." (emphasis supplied) 15. Since there is a clear admission on behalf of the State that till 1999 a single roster was maintained for all the combined services and as the present selection started in February, 1999, we find the vacancy position category-wise was required to be worked out for 204 posts on the basis of single roster being maintained for the purpose. 16. Since there is a clear admission on behalf of the State that till 1999 a single roster was maintained for all the combined services and as the present selection started in February, 1999, we find the vacancy position category-wise was required to be worked out for 204 posts on the basis of single roster being maintained for the purpose. 16. It is well settled law now, as has been held by the Supreme Court in R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab (1995) 2 SCC 745 and Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan (1995) 6 SCC 684 , that the cadre-strength is always measured by the number of posts comprising the cadre. Right to be considered for appointment can only be claimed in respect of a post in a cadre. Percentage of reservation has to be worked out in relation to the number of posts which form the cadre-strength. The concept of vacancy has no relevance in operating the percentage of reservation. The roster is implemented in the form of running account from year to year. The purpose of running account is to make sure that the scheduled castes/tribes and backward classes get their percentage of reserved posts. 17. In view of the admission of the respondents and in terms of the Reservation Rules which provide 2% reservation for OSC category out of 204 posts, four posts will go to the said category. 18. We, therefore, find no force in the pleas raised by the appellants and do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and the order. 19. Accordingly all these appeals are dismissed.