JUDGMENT 1. - Appellant Kirori Lal has preferred this intra court appeal, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, passed in SB Civil Writ Petition No.880/1996 dated 27.07.2009, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ of the appellant. 2. The necessary facts giving rise to this intra court appeal are that the respondents issued an advertisement in the year 1994, inviting applications for IIIrd Grade Lab.Assistant. The appellant applied for the above post , in pursuance of the said advertisement . As per the said advertisement, total posts were nine, out of which four were reserved for boy candidates and five for girl candidates. For reservation five posts were kept for General Category, two posts for Schedule Caste category and two post for Schedule Tribe category. The appellant is candidate in the category of Schedule Tribe. The appellant succeeded in the initial selection, his name was in the merit list and he appeared in the interview held on 10.06.1994 . In the merit list for appointment the name of the appellant was at Sl.No.1, in the list of ST category, but in the appointment orders issued by the respondent Authorities, the name of the appellant was not found mention. The appellant, therefore, preferred a writ petition , which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 27.07.2009. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has preferred this intra court appeal. 3. Counsel for the appellant contended that as the total appointments made were 10 , therefore, by following the 100 point Roster the appointment to the appellant was denied and thus the denial of the appointment to the appellant is not justified as violative of the Roster for reserved categories as provided by the State Government . 4. Per contra, the learned Govt. Counsel, contended that the respondents gave appointments to 6 persons only covering the Roster point No.5 to 10 and while filling up the vacancies from Roster point 6 to 10 no Roster point for the Schedule Tribe comes in the way. Thus, there is no vacancy reserved for the Schedule Tribe, from Roster point No.5 to 10. It cannot be said that any right of appointment of the appellant can be said to have been violated by the respondents. 5. Thus, there is no vacancy reserved for the Schedule Tribe, from Roster point No.5 to 10. It cannot be said that any right of appointment of the appellant can be said to have been violated by the respondents. 5. We have perused the model of the 100 point Roster which has prescribed reservation of categories in the direct recruitment posts provided for subordinate ministerial and Class IV Services. As per that model from Roster point 5 to 10 there is no post reserved for Schedule Tribe. Thus, there is no denial of legal right of the appellant for appointment to the post of Lab. Assistant Grade -III. Counsel for the appellant could not show that the appointments made were more than six at the relevant time. 6. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the appellant does not carry an force , accordingly it is hereby dismissed and the order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.07.2009 is maintained.Appeal Dismissed. *******