Hon'ble VYAS, J.—Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash order dated 09.06.2011 whereby respondent No.4 was given appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk despite the fact that the said respondent stands at S.No.31 and petitioner stands at S.No.24 in the merit-list. Further, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner to provide appointment on the post of L.D.C. strictly in accordance with merit-list while following the provisions of the rules with regard to reservation and appointment provided to respondent No.4 may be re-considered and cancelled. 2. As per facts of the case, an advertisement was issued by the District Judge, Jalore on 16.01.2011 whereby applications were invited for recruitment to 13 posts of Lower Division Clerk, out of which, 6 posts were kept for General category, 5 posts were reserved for OBC category and 2 posts for SC category. In the advertisement, it was specifically mentioned that there will be 20% horizontal reservation for women candidates. 3. The petitioner moved an application for recruitment on the post of Lower Division Clerk in pursuance of the said advertisement No.1 dated 16.01.2011 and she was declared successful in the written examination and her name was included at S.No.24 (OBC woman candidates) in the general merit-list which is placed on record as Annex.-2. The case of the petitioner is that although she was declared successful and she stands in merit at S.No.24 was very much entitled to be considered for appointment under the 20% quota meant for women candidates in accordance with the advertisement; but, the District & Sessions Judge, Jalore provided appointment vide order dated 9.6.2011 to as many as 11 candidates including respondent No.4 Nigahat Jahan against the vacancy of woman candidate in the General category. 4. The petitioner's contention in the writ petition is that the case of Nigahat Jahan was wrongly considered for appointment because her name was at S.No.31 and name of petitioner stood at S.No.24, therefore, even if she is belonging to the OBC woman category, her candidature was to be considered against the vacancy of General woman candidate according to her merit. The petitioner's contention in the writ petition is that the case of Nigahat Jahan was wrongly considered for appointment because her name was at S.No.31 and name of petitioner stood at S.No.24, therefore, even if she is belonging to the OBC woman category, her candidature was to be considered against the vacancy of General woman candidate according to her merit. However, for the purpose of ignoring the right of the petitioner for appointment, Ms Preetin Saini was considered against the vacancy of OBC Woman category even though her name stood at S.No.20 and case of respondent No.4 Nigahat Jahan was considered against the vacancy of General category, which is totally against the reservation policy, in which, it is clearly provided that reservation vacancies for women candidates will be 20% on horizontal basis. Therefore, the name of Preeti Saini was to be considered against the General seat and petitioner who was at S.No.24 was to be conside-red against the vacancy of OBC woman candidate; but, the District & Sessions Judge, Jalore failed to appreciate the legal provisions of law of reservation and while doing so ignored the right of the petitioner for appointment. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards notification dated 31.05.2000, in which, clarification was issued by the Government for considering candidature of woman candidates and submits that the consideration made by the respondent District & Sessions Judge, Jalore for women candidates of OBC category is unjustified and contrary to law. Therefore, it is prayed that appointment of respondent No.4 Nigahat Jahan may be quashed and petitioner may be considered for appointment against the vacancy of OBC woman candidate while shifting Preeti Saini in the General category. 6. This matter was listed in the Court on 18.07.2012. On that date, learned Addl. Advocate General Mr. G.R. Poonia submitted that competent authority is re-considering the case of the petitioner and there is every likelihood of relief being given to the petitioner at their end. 7. Again, the matter was listed in the Court on 04.09.2012. On that date also, upon request made by learned Addl. Advocate General while adjourning the case it was observed that it is expected from the respondents that they will take final decision in the matter. 8. Today, it is informed by the Addl. 7. Again, the matter was listed in the Court on 04.09.2012. On that date also, upon request made by learned Addl. Advocate General while adjourning the case it was observed that it is expected from the respondents that they will take final decision in the matter. 8. Today, it is informed by the Addl. Advocate General that after considering the entire facts and law the District & Sessions Judge, Jalore has decided to terminate the appointment of respondent No.4 Ms Nigahat Jahan after giving her 7 days' show-cause notice; and, thereafter, the petitioner Ms Ruchika Kansara will be appointed simultaneously in her place. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 Mr. Harish Purohit vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that with open eyes appointment was provided to respondent No.4 against vacancy occurring under 20% quota meant for women candidates because she belongs to General Woman category and even though her name is at S.No.31 but she is first woman candidate of General category, therefore, even if it is presumed that the case of the petitioner was not considered in accordance with law, now, at this stage, respondent No.4 cannot be held responsible and bread and butter of respondent No.4 cannot be snatched at this stage for anything wrong committed by the District & Sessions Judge, Jalore because no misrepresentation or fraud has been committed by her for getting the appointment and respondent authorities with open eyes with conscious decision provided appointment to respondent No.4. Therefore, the decision now taken by the District & Sessions Judge, Jalore for terminating the appointment of respondent No.4 is totally vexatious. 10. In support of his contention, learned counsel for respondent No.4 invited attention of the Court towards judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, reported in 1988(2) RLW 428, Bhupal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, in which, it has been held by this Court that appointment made by the competent authority with open eyes cannot be cancelled on the ground that wrong consideration was made by the authority, therefore, while protecting the appointment of respondent No.4 the petitioner's case may be considered. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the entire record of the case. 12. It is not in dispute that in the merit list names of Ms Preeti Saini and petitioner Ms Ruchika Kansara rank at S.No.20 and 24 as OBC Woman candidates. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the entire record of the case. 12. It is not in dispute that in the merit list names of Ms Preeti Saini and petitioner Ms Ruchika Kansara rank at S.No.20 and 24 as OBC Woman candidates. It is also not in dispute that name of respondent No.4 Ms Nigahat Jahan is at S.No.31 i.e., much below the petitioner, but, she has been given appointment as General Woman candidate and she is only woman candidate in the General category who has been declared successful in the examination. Therefore, it seems that at the time of providing appointment by the District & Sessions Judge, Jalore, her case was considered against the vacancy of General category woman candidate as per 20% horizontal woman reservation; but, while considering the candidature it appears that by mistake the appointing authority considered the candidature of Ms Preeti Saini against OBC woman category instead of General category woman candidate because she was at S.No.20 which is her merit than petitioner and respondent No.4 both. Therefore, the consideration of respondent No.4 was not in accordance with the reservation policy norm and as such due to mistake while denying appointment to the petitioner the District & Sessions Judge, Jalore provided appointment to respondent No.4. 13. The respondent authority was under obligation to adhere to the reservation policy/norm for the purpose of considering the candidature of the candidates first in the General category irrespective of the candidate being of reserved category but it has not been done and, contrary to reservation policy, appointment was provided to Ms Preeti Saini against the category of OBC Woman. 14. It is also worthwhile to observe that Ms Preeti Saini who was at S.No.20 was provided appointment against the vacancy of OBC (woman) against 20% quota which is meant horizontal whereas she was to be considered as per her rank in the merit-list against General category. In view of above, it emerges from the facts that it is a case of erroneous consideration of reservation norm meant for woman candidate, therefore, I hold that denial of appointment to the petitioner on the post of L.D.C. is in transgression of the reservation policy, therefore, she is entitled for appointment on the said post. 15. In view of above, it emerges from the facts that it is a case of erroneous consideration of reservation norm meant for woman candidate, therefore, I hold that denial of appointment to the petitioner on the post of L.D.C. is in transgression of the reservation policy, therefore, she is entitled for appointment on the said post. 15. At the same time, however, appointment of respondent No.4 Ms Nigahat Jahan cannot be disturbed in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhupal Singh vs. State, in which, it has been held that appointment made by the duly constituted selection committee cannot be cancelled if any mistake is committed by the selection committee or appointing authority. In the instant case also, there is no allegation that respondent No.4 committed any misrepresentation or fraud. In the instant case also, there is no allegation that respondent No.4 committed any misrepresentation or fraud. In the judgment reported in 1988(2) RLW 428, Bhupal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, the Division Bench of this Court held in para 7 to 10 as under : ^^7- fof/k dk ;g lqfuf'pr fl)kUr gS fd ;fn fdlh deZpkjh dh fu;qfä l{ke p;u lfefr }kjk p;u ds i'pkr~ l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk dh xbZ gks rks ,slh fu;qfä ds QyLo:i ,sls deZpkjh dks lsok esa cus jgus dk laoS/kkfud vf/kdkj izkIr gks tkrk gSA mls lsok esa cus jgus ds vf/kdkj ls vdkj.k oafpr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA mls lsok ls eqä rHkh fd;k tk ldrk gS tcfd ;k rks in lekIr gks tk;s rFkk deZpkjh dh fu;kstd dks vko';drk gh u jgsA nwljh ifjfLFkfr ;g gks ldrh gS fd deZpkjh dk dk;Z larks"kiznj u jgk gks vFkok mlus dksbZ ,slk vopkj fd;k gks ftlds dkj.k mldh lsok eqfä djuk fof/k leer gksA vlaxr dkj.kksa ls deZpkjh dh lsok lekIr ugha dh tk ldrh vkSj ;fn fdUgha vlaxr dkj.kksa ls mldh lsok lekIr dh tkrh gS rks ,slk vkns'k vuqfpr o vfof/kekU; gksxkA p;u lfefr }kjk viukbZ xbZ izfØ;k esa dksbZ nks"k jg tkus ds dkj.k ;k p;u lfefr ds xBu esa dksbZ =qfV jgus ds dkj.k Hkh deZpkjh dh lsok lekIr ugha dh tk ldrhA gekjs bl er dh iqf"V blh U;k;ky; ds [k.M ihB flfoy fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 303@85 f'koyky cuke tkyksj dksvijsfVo lsUVªy cSad fuf.kZr 8-9-87 ls gksrh gSA 8- gekjs le{k v;kphx.k dh vksj ls vR;Ur lkekU;; o vLi"V :i l dgk x;k gS fd ;kph ds p;u esa dqN vfu;ferrk,a dh xbZA ;g dgk x;k gS fd bl lEcU/k esa f'kdk;rsa ¼layXu vkj-1 ls vkj-4½ izkIr gqbZ Fkh vkSj mu ij izkjfEHkd tkap dh xbZ Fkh vkSj bl dkj.k ;kph dh lsok lekIr djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k FkkA bl lEcU/k esa ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd v;kphx.k us vius fyf[kr mÙkj esa ;g ugh n'kkZ;k gS fd p;u lfefr us ;k fu;qfä vf/kdkjh us ;kph ds p;u ;k fu;qfä esa dkSu dkSu lh fo'ks"k vfu;ferrk,a cjrh FkhA gekjs le{k dfFkr izkjfEHkd tkap izfrosnu vFkok mldh izfrfyfi izLrqr ugha dh xbZ gSA layXud vkj-1 ls vkj-4 rks dsoy f'kdk;rs ek= gSA bu f'kdk;rksa dh tkap ij] bu esa ls dkSu dkSu lh f'kdk;r] fdl fdl lhek rd lgh ikbZ xbZ] ;g gekjs le{k ugha crk;k x;kgSA,slh fLFkfr esa bl izØe ij ;g dguk lEHko ugha gS fd oLrqr% ;kph ds p;u ;k fu;qfä esa dSlh o fdl izdkj dh vfu;ferrk,a cjrh xbZA 9- iqujko`fr ds nks"k ij ;g mYys[k djuk lehphu izrhr gksrk gS fd ;kph ds fo:) ;g vkjksi ugha gS fd og fu;qfä dk ik= ugha Fkk vFkok fu;qfä ds fy, fdlh izdkj ls fu;ksZX;rk FkkA blh izdkj mlds fo:) ;g vk{ksi Hkh ugha gSfd mlds p;u ;k fu;qfä esa cjrh xbZ fdlh vfu;ferrk esa mldh dksbZ lgHkkfxrk jgh gksA ,slh fLFkfr esa p;ulfefr ;k fu;qfä vf/kdkjh }kjk dh xbz fdlh =qfV nks"k ;k vfu;ferrk ds fy, ;kph dks u rks nks"kh dgk tk ldrk gS] u mlsvU; fdlh izdkj ls mÙkjnk;h dgk tk ldrk gSA gekjs bl er dh iqf"V blh U;k;ky; dh [k.M ihB }kjk fn;s x;s ml fu.kZ; ls Hkh gksrh gs ftlesa [k.M ihB }kjk fn;s x;s ml fu.kZ; ls Hkh gksrh gS ftlesa [k.M ihB flfoy fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 87@1988 jkewjke cuke ckM+esj dks vksijsfVo lSUVªy cSad o vU; ekeys dk fuLrkj.k fd;k x;k FkkA ml [k.M ihB esa ge nksuksa esa ls ,d ¼ekuuh; U;k;kf/kifr Jh v'kksd dqekj ekFkqj½ Hkh lnL; FksA ml ekeys esa lgdkjh lfefr ds jftLVªkj us vius v/khuLFk cSad ds izcU/k funs'kd dks Li"V funsZ'k fn;k Fkk fd og fdlh izdkj dh fu;qfä ugha djsaA fdUrq ,sls funsZ'k dh voekuuk djrs gq, izcU/k funs'kd us ml ekeysa ds ;kphx.k dks fu;qfä ns nh FkhA bl fu;qfä dks uohu iz'kkld us ckn esa vikLr dj fn;k ftl ij ;kphx.k jkewjke] v:.k dqekj] Hkaaoj flag o vU; us fofHkUu fjV ;kfpdk;sa nk;j dj viuh viuh lsok eqfä dks pqukSrh nhA mä ekeys esa iwoksZä f'koyky okys U;k; n`"VkUr dks /;ku esa j[krs gqos ;g er izdV fd;k x;k Fkk fd tks fu;qfä gks pqdh Fkh mUgsa vikLr fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ugha Fkk] tcfd ,slh fu;qfä esa pk;h dk dksbZ nks"k ugha FkkA gekjh lEefr esa mä nksuksa U;k; n`"VkUr bl ekeysa ds rF;ksa ij Hkh ykxw gksrs gSA 10- ;gka ge ;g Li"V dj nsuk pkgasxs fd gekjs dgus dk ;g rkRi;Z ugha gS fd p;u lfefr dks ;k fu;qfä vf/kdkjh dks euekus <ax ls p;u ;k fu;qfä djus dh NwV gSA gekjs dgus dk rkRi;Z rks bruk gh gS fd ;fn p;u lfefr }kjk viukbZ xbZ izfØ;k esa ;k fu;qfä vf/kdkjh }kjk viukbZ xbZ izfØ;k esa dksbZ vfu;ferrk gks] ysfdu ,slh lfefr p;u dk xBu fof/kekU; gks vkSj fu;qfä vf/kdkjh fu;qfä ds fy;s l{ke gks vkSj ,slh vfu;ferrkvksa esa p;fur izR;k'kh dh dksbZ lgHkkfxrk ;k nks"k u gks rks fQj ,sls p;u ;k fu;qfä ds QyLo:i lsok dks dsoy dfFkr vfu;ferrkvksa ds vk/kkj ij lekIr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA** 16. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed and respondent District & Sessions Judge, Jalore is directed to shift Ms Preeti Saini, who has been provided appointment in the OBC category (woman) against the vacancy of General category (woman) and, in her place, the petitioner who is at S.No.24 shall be provided appointment forthwith against the post of OBC Woman category; but, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Bhupal Singh's case (supra) the services of respondent No.4 Ms Nigahat Jahan shall not be terminated because no misrepresentation or fraud is committed by her and appointment has been provided to her by the competent authority with open eyes. But, the petitioner shall be entitled for seniority with effect from the date when respondent No.4 was provided appointment. The petitioner shall be entitled for monetary benefits with effect from the date of judgment of this case. There shall however be no order as to costs.