Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—By this D.B. Civil Special Appeal, the judgment and dated 16.9.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B.C.W.P. No. 4080/2000 has been challenged. The learned Single Judge has held that reservations in favour of physically handicapped persons are horizontal reservations and such persons would be placed in the appropriate category (General, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Class) to which they belonged in the event of their selection. The learned Single Judge has negated the case of the appellant for drawing a list of physically handicapped persons as a separate category. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is suffering from blindness of 98% and has been so certified under the certificate dated 16.3.1983 issued by the statutory authority relevant to avail the benefits under the Rajasthan Employment of Physically Handicapped Rules, 1976 (for short, "the Rules 1976"). An advertisement came to be issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (for short, "the Commission") for writing of the Rajasthan Administrative Service/Rajasthan Tehsildar Service (Combined Competitive) Examination (hereinafter, "(Main) Examination 1999) for selection to the notified posts. The appellant submits that under 100-Point Roster dated 9.7.1995 as issued by the Government of Rajasthan, A physically handicapped person is entitled to appointment subject to his eligibility and selection on Roster Point 34, which relates to "blind category". It is submitted that in response to the advertisement issued by the Commission, as stated hereinabove the appellant made an application to the competent authority against the handicapped quota under the category of "blind". The appellant passed the Preliminary Examination and thereafter appeared for the main examination of RAS/RTS Combined Competitive (Main) Examination, 1999. The result of the main examination was declared on 24.10.2000. 3. The appellant submits that apart from him, not even a single candidate under the category of "blind" took the Main Examination of 1999 and conesquently he was entitled to be called for interview but the marks-sheet received by him pertaining to (Main) Examination, 1999 showed that he was not qualified for interview. It is submitted that the endorsement in the marks-sheet with regard to appellant having failed to qualify for interview was erroneous inasmuch as the Commission has not laid down the qualifying/passing marks in the RAS/RTS Combined Competitive (Main) Examination, 1999. 4. It is submitted that the endorsement in the marks-sheet with regard to appellant having failed to qualify for interview was erroneous inasmuch as the Commission has not laid down the qualifying/passing marks in the RAS/RTS Combined Competitive (Main) Examination, 1999. 4. The further case of the appellant is that consequent to his not being called for the interview, a representation was made by him on or before 4.11.2000 to the Commissioner, Welfare Department, stating that as per the Rules of 1976, 3% posts in all the services of State are reserved for physically handicapped category, out of which 1% was specifically reserved for blind candidates. It was stated that on percentage consideration aforesaid out of the vacancies advertised for the (Main) Examination, 1999, 15 vacancies were reserved for physically handicapped candidates out of which 5 posts were reserved for blind candidates. It was submitted hat as per 100-Point Roster, Roster Point-34 was made for blind candidates and the Commission had not issued any notification/order fixing the qualifying/passing marks in the said examination of 1999. The appellant further sought to strengthen his case on the basis of comparison of marks secured by him at the main examination as a general/open category candidate with OBC/SC/ST candidates had been called for interview. 5. The representation dated 4.12.2000 as laid by the appellant not having been any avail and interviews having been commenced on the basis of merit-list prepared by the Commission following the main examination of 1999, the appellant approached this Court and filed SBCWP No. 4080/2000. Interim order dated 10.11.2000 appears to have been passed, whereby the Commission was directed to provisionally interview with reference to RAS/RTS Combined (Main) Competitive Examination, 1999; the result of the interview, however, was kept in sealed cover during pendency of the writ petition. 6. The Commission stated before the learned Single Judge that the appellant had been treated in the physically handicapped category in the Main Examination of 1999 in view of the disablement certificate submitted by him along with the application. Admitting that concession, as provided under the Rules of 1976 and the notification issued thereunder, was being continuously provided to physically handicapped candidates, it was submitted that the issue of roster-point reserved for physically handicapped candidates was not relevant in the selection process. Admitting that concession, as provided under the Rules of 1976 and the notification issued thereunder, was being continuously provided to physically handicapped candidates, it was submitted that the issue of roster-point reserved for physically handicapped candidates was not relevant in the selection process. It was submitted that the Commission was concerned with the merit and consequent eligibility of the candidates for being called for interview. It was submitted that the case of the appellant that the Commission be required to draw up a separate category list for physically handicapped candidates as in the case of reservations for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes candidates with reference to Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India, was misdirected. Reference was made to the case of Indira Sawhney vs. Union of India, 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 215, decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that a person falling in any reserved category did not become entitled to selection automatically because reservation has been made in that category. It was further submitted that the appellant was only entitled to get concession, which concession was given to him as provided under rule 9 of the Rules of 1976, but could only be considered within the category in which he fell and as the appellant belonged to a General Category, he had been given the benefit in the cut off marks fixed for the candidates belonging to General category to an extent of 5% as provided under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976. However, even after that concession, the appellant was not able to qualify for interview. It was stated that consequent to the interim order of the Hon'ble High Court, the appellant had been allowed to participate in the interview process on 15.11.2000 on provisional basis. 7. It was further submitted by the Commission that it was incorrect that no qualifying/pass marks had been determined in respect of RAS/RTS Combined (Main) Competitive Examination 1999. It was submitted that following the main examination of 1999, cut off marks in respect of categories of General (Open Category) candidates, Scheduled Caste Candidate, Scheduled tribes Candidates and Other Backward Classes Candidates were determined with reference to the number of posts available in each category and the said cut off marks were the qualifying/pass marks for the purpose of being called for interview. In spite of concession of 5% marks in terms of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976 to the physically handicapped candidates, the appellant had not made the cut off and, therefore, was rightly not called for interview. 8. The Commission further pointed out that the category of handicapped candidates was not a separate category but reservation was to be provided to such candidates in their respective category, i.e. General/OBC/SC/ST subject albeit to such candidates qualifying on the basis of cut off marks suitably reduced by 5% with reference to Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976. 9. On consideration of the matter, the learned Single Judge held that the case set up before him that there should be a separate category for physically handicapped candidates was not legally sustainable in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of India Sawhney vs. Union of India (supra), whereunder the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that "there are two types of reservations, which may, for the sake of convenience, be referred to as "vertical reservations" and "horizontal reservations." The reservations in favour of scheduled caste, scheduled tribes and other backward classes (under Article 16(4)) may be called vertical reservations whereas reservations in favour of physically handicapped (under clause (1) of Article 16) can be referred to as horizontal reservations. Horizontal reservations cut across the vertical reservations- what is called interlocking reservations." 10. It was noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that "the persons selected against this quota will be placed in the appropriate category; if he belongs to SC category he will be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustments; similarly if he belongs to open competition (OC) category, he will be placed in that category by making necessary adjustments. Even after providing for these horizontal reservations, the percentage of reservations in favour of backward class of citizens remains- and should remain-the same. This is how these reservations are worked out in several States and there is no reason not to continue that procedure." 11. Even after providing for these horizontal reservations, the percentage of reservations in favour of backward class of citizens remains- and should remain-the same. This is how these reservations are worked out in several States and there is no reason not to continue that procedure." 11. The learned Single Judge also referred to the copy of Advertisement No.2/1988-99 dated 10.5.1999 which was on record, which indicated that there was no separate reservation for physically handicapped persons and as such it was clear that as the appellant belonged to the General Category, he would find place, if otherwise eligible on the basis of cut off marks for the handicapped candidates only in general category as a physically handicapped person with reference to the Rules of 1976. It was also found by the learned single Judge that having secured 599 marks out of 1300 marks, even after concession of 5% marks, the appellant could not make the cut off for general category (male candidates) as determined by the Commission. The learned Single Judge found the claim of the appellant that his case ought to be considered with reference to persons in the reserved categories (OBC/SC/ST) securing lesser marks than him was misdirected as it was contrary to the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. So holding, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. 12. In the present appeal, the case laid before the learned Single Judge has been reiterated without anything more. counsel for the appellant submits that by virtue of being a physically handicapped person and falling in a category which in terms of the Rules of 1976, was entitled to 3% of the vacancies advertised, the appellant was entitled to be called for interview by the Commission on the ground that he was the only blind candidate who had written the main examination of 1999. It is the case of the appellant that one seat at Point 34 was reserved for blind candidates on the 100-Point Roster System and to this seat, the appellant was entitled to be appointed under law notwithstanding that he had failed to obtain the cut off marks for general category (male) candidates in spite of 5% concession provided to him under rule 9 of the rules of 1976. Counsel for the appellant reiterates that a separate list was to be prepared for physically handicapped candidates and reserved category candidates such as SC/ST/OBC, overlooking the fact that the reservation for physically handicapped persons relates to Articl3 16(1) and not Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India, which applies to SC/ST/OBC candidates and is of a different genre. 13. It is further the case of the appellant that his performance at the main examination 1999 securing 599 marks out of 1300 marks was better than the other reserved category candidates such as SC/ST/OBC candidates, who secured 529 marks out of 1300 marks and as such, being a reserved category candidates himself, his cut off marks ought to have been juxtaposed to the marks obtained by SC/ST/OBC candidates and he ought not to have been evaluated with reference to the cut off marks of general category candidates even after being lowered by the 5% concession under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976. 14. The last argument of the counsel for the appellant is that there was no qualifying marks prescribed for the Main Examination 1999 and as such the appellant was entitled to be called for interview and to be appointed by the Commission solely on the ground of being the only blind candidates to have written the main examination 1999 as the Roster Point 34 in the 100-Point Roster System notified by the State Government provided for reservation for blind candidates. 15 . We have perused the memo of appeal and the judgment of the learned Single Judge and also heard counsel for the appellant. 16. We find that the case of the appellant is absolutely misdirected and the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant are contrary to the enunciation of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indira Sawhney (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has quite categorically stated that reservation in favour of physically handicapped persons, referable to Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India, are horizontal reservation and should not be confused or equated with vertical reservation as provided to SC/ST/OBC candidates with reference to Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India and further that there can be no separate category list drawn with reference to special reservation in favour of physically handicapped candidates and those others benefiting from the provisions of Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. 17. 17. In the course of arguments, it has been pointedc out by the counsel for the Commission that while the cut off marks for general category (male) candidates was determined as 680 marks following the Main Examination of 1999, with 5% concession thereon with reference to Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976, the cut off marks for physically handicapped persons would be 646. As against the said cut off marks of 646 for physically handicapped candidates, the appellant secured 599 marks and was, thus, not entitled to be called for interview. This fact, to our mind, is completely destructive of the case of the appellant on merit. 18. The appeal appears to be argued under a conceptual confusion with regard to reservation being construed as a right to appointment. Reservation under Rules of 1976, no doubt, seeks to set apart 3% of the seats at all recruitments for the physically handicapped candidates, but such setting apart of 3% seats for the physically handicapped persons does not exclude the requirement of such physically handicapped persons attaining the minimum requisite performance as determined for the categories at the recruitment examination. This Court is of the view that in the facts of the case, even though 5% reservation was provided for under the Rules of 1976 and applicable to the RAS/RTS combined (Main) Competitive Examination 1999, yet the appellant having failed to obtain even the lowered cut off marks at the examination as determined by the Commission, he was not entitled to be called for interview of appointed to a post. 19. The manner as to how horizontal reservations are to be applied, has been detailed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 173 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in para 18, held as under :- "Now, coming to the correctness of the procedure prescribed by the revised notification for filling up the seats, it was wrong to direct the fifteen per cent special reservation seats to be filled up first and then take up the OC (merit) quota (followed by filling of OBC, SC and ST quotas). The proper and correct course is to first fill up the OC quota (50%) on the basis of merit; then fill up each of the social reservations quotas, i.e. SC, ST and BC; the third step would be to find out how many candidates, belonging to special reservations have been selected on the above basis. If the quota fixed for horizontal reservations is already satisfied - in case it is an overall horizontal reservation - no further question arises. But if it is not so satisfied, the requisite number of special reservation candidates shall have to be taken and adjusted/accommodated against their respective social reservation categories by deleting the corresponding number of candidates therefrom, (If, however, it is a case of compartmentalized horizontal reservation, then the process of verification and adjustment/ accommodation as stated above should be applied separately to each of the vertical reservations. In such a case, the reservation of fifteen per cent in favour of special categories, overall may be satisfied or may not be satisfied." 20. From the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme court, it is apparent that reservation in favour of special categories may or "may not be" satisfied and this also dislocates the case of the appellant that merely by virtue of having written the Main Examination of 1999, he was entitled to appointment as a matter of right on the basis of reservation for blind candidates- whether or not he achieved the cut off marks determined by the Commission for calling such a candidates for interview. 21. So far as the case of the appellant is that the marks obtained by him in the RAS/RTS Main Examination 1999 ought to have been evaluated with reference to the marks obtained by other reserved category candidates like SC/ST/OBC, it only deserves to be noted for rejection. It has been held by eh Hon'ble Supreme Court as also this Court that vertical reservations on the one under Article 16(4) and horizontal reservation under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India belong to different genre and cannot be equated with each other. Consequently, for the purpose of appointment of a general category candidate (even physically handicapped, he cannot be equated with the performance of SC/ST/OBC candidates. Merely because the Commission had fixed lower cut off marks for SC/ST/OBC candidates vis-a-vis the marks of the appellant, it can be no avail to the appellant. 22. Consequently, for the purpose of appointment of a general category candidate (even physically handicapped, he cannot be equated with the performance of SC/ST/OBC candidates. Merely because the Commission had fixed lower cut off marks for SC/ST/OBC candidates vis-a-vis the marks of the appellant, it can be no avail to the appellant. 22. The case of the appellant, argued on the basis of comparison with reservation for woman candidates with reference to Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India is also unsustainable inasmuch as Woman Category candidates, in general or open category had a cut off 656 marks and 623 marks (after 5% concession under rule 9 of the Rules of 1976 in the event of being physically handicapped. 23. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds that this appeal is wholly without merit and, in fact, founded on ground contrary to the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thus wholly misdirected. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. Dismissed as such with the cost of Rs.5000/-.