Hon'ble VYAS, J.—Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash order dated 20.6.2011 (Annex.-12) to the extent it holds that respondent No. 2 is not empowered to review the order of appointment dated 30.4.2011, so also, to quash the order of appointment dated 30.4.2011 (Annex. 8) passed in favour of respondent No. 3 and posting order issued by respondent No. 2 qua respondent No. 3 and further it is prayed that respondent No. 2 may be directed to provide appointment to the petitioner on the post of Stenographer with effect from the date respondent No. 3 was provided appointment with all consequential benefits. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was substantively working on the post of L.D.C. in the Hanumangarh Judgeship and while working on the said post he was selected on the post of Stenographer in the recruitment conducted by the Ajmer Judgeship and provided appointment in the Court of Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate No. 1, Kekari. 3. The District & Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar issued an advertisement on 10.01.2011 whereby 3 posts of Hindi Stenographer in Sriganganagar Judgeship were published and, out of 3 posts, 2 posts were reserved for Scheduled Tribe category and 1 post was reserved for Scheduled Caste category. The said advertisement was issued under the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Staff (Establishment) Rules, 1986 and Amended Rules 1999. In the advertisement, it was specifically mentioned that in the event of qualifying the examination by those employees working in the Sriganganagar Judgeship preference will be given to them for appointment and, in the event of non-availability of candidates from the reserved category appointment will be made from the General category also. 4. Contention of the petitioner in the writ petition is that in the qualifying examination conducted by respondent No. 2 four candidates were declared qualified and their names were included in the merit list. In the merit list, at S.No. 1 Sanjay Kumar obtained 138.614 marks and name of petitioner was included at S.No. 2 because he obtained 135 marks. Name of respondent No. 3 was at S.No. 3 in the merit list who secured 109.935 marks. All the above three candidates belonged to General category and the name of candidate Santosh Kumar who belonged to Schedule Caste category was at S.No. 4. Name of respondent No. 3 was at S.No. 3 in the merit list who secured 109.935 marks. All the above three candidates belonged to General category and the name of candidate Santosh Kumar who belonged to Schedule Caste category was at S.No. 4. After preparing the merit-list by the District & Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar, the result was declared on 25.4.2011 and, thereafter, on 30.4.2011 appointment order of three candidates was issued. 5. As per contention of the petitioner no candidate from the Scheduled Tribe category stood in merit and was not available, therefore, as per terms and conditions of the advertisement, two posts of Scheduled Tribe reserved category were filled in from amongst General category candidates. The candidate who was at S.No. 1 in the merit list namely, Sanjay Kumar and candidate at S.No. 3 Ms Manju were provided appointment inspite of the fact that petitioner was at S.No. 2 in the merit list. The contention of the petitioner is that undisputedly he was in the merit and stood at S.No. 2 while securing 135 marks, his candidature was ignored and less meritorious candidate Ms Manju Rajwanshi who secured 109.35 marks was provided appointment in contravention of the basic principles of law which is in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. The petitioner preferred writ petition before this Court after filing representation before the District & Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar. The said writ petition filed by the petitioner was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4667/2011, in which, directions were issued by this Court on 27.5.2011 to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of the order and further it was clarified that at the time of deciding the representation the question of woman reservation shall also be taken into consideration. 7. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the representation of the petitioner was decided vide order dated 20.6.2011 (Annex. 12), in which, it is accepted by respondent No. 2 that petitioner is at S.No. 2 in the merit list and claim of the petitioner is in accordance with rules because he is more meritorious than respondent No. 3 Ms Manju Rajvanshi for the reason that the petitioner secured 135 marks and Ms Manju obtained only 109 marks. 12), in which, it is accepted by respondent No. 2 that petitioner is at S.No. 2 in the merit list and claim of the petitioner is in accordance with rules because he is more meritorious than respondent No. 3 Ms Manju Rajvanshi for the reason that the petitioner secured 135 marks and Ms Manju obtained only 109 marks. However, accepting the contentions raised by the petitioner the respondent District & Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar did not provide appointment and observed in the order that there is provision of appeal in accordance with Rule 25 of the Rules of 1986, therefore, the petitioner may file appeal and the appointment order once made cannot be reviewed by him. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that reasons for rejecting the petitioner's claim and for providing appointment to respondent No. 3 are totally baseless and against the settled principles of law. Once this Court passed specific direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the representation while taking into consideration the merit position of the petitioner, then, obviously the order was to be complied with in true sense but, inspite of deciding the representation in right perspective the District & Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar virtually relegated the petitioner to alternate remedy which is rather contemptuous because in the entire order it is nowhere stated by respondent No. 2 that the petitioner is not entitled to appointment and as per Rule 23 preference has been given to respondent No. 3 who is woman candidate and she belongs to Ganganagar Judgeship, therefore, it is apparently clear from the facts of the case that rightful claim of the petitioner has been rejected on totally untenable grounds which is contrary to law. 9. 9. Argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once it is establi-shed that the petitioner is meritorious and less meritorious candidate has been provided appointment and as per direction of this Court his candidature was to be considered viz-a-viz respondent No. 3 but the District & Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar in very casual manner shirked to decide the representation of the petitioner and relegated him to avail alternate remedy by way of filing appeal; meaning thereby, the District & Sessions Judge, Sriganga-nagar has not cared to comply with the judicial order passed by this Court on 27.5.2012, therefore, impugned order of appointment passed in favour of respondent No.3 may be quashed and while quashing order dated 20.6.2011 passed upon the representation filed by the petitioner may be set aside and respondent No.2 may be directed to provide appointment as per his merit. 10. In support of his argument learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of the Court towards judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Y.V.V.R. Srinivasulu & Others, reported in AIR 2003 SC 3961 , in which, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that preference can be given but before giving preference it is mandatory for the appointing authority to see that other things qualitatively and quantitatively are equal. But, here, in this case, admittedly the petitioner secured 135 marks and respondent No. 3 Ms Manju obtained only 109 marks and both are belonging to the General category; but, ignoring the petitioner's candidature being more meritorious appointment has been provided to lesser meritorious candidate respondent No. 3. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment, appointment order made in favour of respondent No. 3 (Annex. 8) and order dated 20.6.2011 passed upon the representation filed by the petitioner may be quashed and respondent District & Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar may be directed to provide appointment to the petitioner on the post of Stenographer with effect from the date respondent No. 3 was provided appointment. 11. Per contra, learned Addl. Advocate General Mr. G.R. Punia submits that District & Sessions Judge has rightly decided the representation vide Annex. 12 dated 20.6.2011 because once appointment order has been made by him it cannot be reviewed. 11. Per contra, learned Addl. Advocate General Mr. G.R. Punia submits that District & Sessions Judge has rightly decided the representation vide Annex. 12 dated 20.6.2011 because once appointment order has been made by him it cannot be reviewed. Further, it is submitted that respondent No. 3 was provided appointment while taking into consideration Rule 23(2) of the Rules, in which, preference is provided to candidate belong to the respective Judgeship; in view of above it is submitted that the District & Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar cannot review his own order, therefore, he has decided the representation and granted liberty to the petitioner to file appeal in which there is no illegality. Therefore, this writ petition may be dismissed and if the petitioner is having any grievance, then, he can avail remedy of appeal against the appointment order. 13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully considered the matter in its entirety. 14. The following facts are not disputed in this writ petition: (A) The advertisement for recruitment was issued to fill up three vacancies of Stenographer belonging to ST and SC categories and the petitioner and respondent No. 3 both belong to the General category. No candidate from Scheduled Tribe category was found suitable. (B) Undisputedly the petitioner's name is at S.No. 2 because he secured 135 marks and respondent No. 3 is at S.No. 3 having secured 109 marks in the General category. (C) Admittedly no vacancy of General category was advertised but it was made clear that in the event of non-availability of candidates from the reserved category the vacancy will be filled in from General category, as per advertisement, 2 appointments were made by respondent No. 2 from amongst the General category candidates because no candidate from ST category was found suitable. (D) Admittedly woman reservation is horizontal, therefore, the case of respondent No. 3 does not fall under woman reservation. (E) Admittedly, the petitioner secured 135 marks which is higher than marks obtained by respondent No. 3 and, inspite of that, his candidature has not been considered and less meritorious candidate respondent No. 3 we secured 109.35 marks has been appointed. 15. (E) Admittedly, the petitioner secured 135 marks which is higher than marks obtained by respondent No. 3 and, inspite of that, his candidature has not been considered and less meritorious candidate respondent No. 3 we secured 109.35 marks has been appointed. 15. Upon the above undisputed facts, it is abundantly clear that respondent No. 2 has completely ignored the merit and provided appointment to respondent No. 3 which is contrary to the rules and basic concept of service law, therefore, action of respondent No. 2 is violative of the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 16. The plea of respondent to grant preference in appointment to the candidate of same Judgeship is also not acceptable because in the judgment of Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Y.V.V.R. Srinivasulu & Others, reported in AIR 2003 SC 3961 , Hon'ble Supreme Court held that preference provided in the rules can be given to candidate if other things being qualitatively and quantitatively are equal. Here, in this case, marks obtained by the petitioner and marks obtained by respondent No. 3 are not equal; more so, the petitioner has secured 26 more marks than the respondent No. 3, therefore, it cannot be said that no power was left with the District & Sessions Judge to cancel the appointment wrongly made in contravention of the constitutional provision in favour of respondent No. 3 while deciding the representation of the petitioner. 17. It emerges from the facts that the District & Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar proceeding in the matter under misconception ignored the merit. In view of the above, denial of appointment to the petitioner is totally discriminatory and in contravention of the constitutional provisions so as to snatch the legal right of the petitioner without any reason or rhyme. 18. It is also worthwhile to consider the fact that respondent No. 3 is woman candidate and she stood in merit at S.No. 3 just after the petitioner and two candidates of General category were appointed against the posts of Scheduled Tribe category as per the terms and conditions of advertisement. Out of 4 candidates who were included in the merit list of Stenographer 3 candidates are belonging to the General category and one from the Scheduled Caste category. Out of 4 candidates who were included in the merit list of Stenographer 3 candidates are belonging to the General category and one from the Scheduled Caste category. The appointment of respondent No. 3 was made against the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe category under misconception and no fraud or misrepresentation was made by respondent No. 3 for getting appointment. She was provided appointment by the competent authority because she was in merit list at S.No. 3 being woman candidate. The appointment of respondent No. 3 was made against the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe category under misconception and no fraud or misrepresentation was made by respondent No. 3 for getting appointment. She was provided appointment by the competent authority because she was in merit list at S.No. 3 being woman candidate. In the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Bhupal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1988 (2) RLW 428, following adjudication has been made by the Division Bench: ^^7- fof/k dk ;g lqfuf'pr fl)kUr gS fd ;fn fdlh deZpkjh dh fu;qfDr l{ke p;u lfefr }kjk p;u ds i'pkr~ l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk dh xbZ gks rks ,slh fu;qfDr 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 eqDr 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"kizn u jgk gks vFkok mlus dksbZ ,slk vopkj fd;k gks ftlds dkj.k mldh lsok eqfDr djuk fof/k lEer gksA valxr 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 ls dgk x;k gS fd ;kph ds p;u esa dqN vfu;ferrk,a dh xbZA ;g dgk x;k gS fd bl laca/k esa f'kdk;rs ¼layXud vkj-1 ls vkj-4½ izkIr gqbZ Fkh vkSj mu ij izkjafHkd tkap dh xbZ Fkh vkSj bl dkj.k ;kph dh lsok lekIr djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k FkkA bl laca/k esa ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd v;kphx.k us vius fyf[kr mRrj esa ;g ugha n'kkZ;k gS fd p;u lfefr us ;k fu;qfDr vf/kdkjh us ;kph ds opu ;k fu;qfDr 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;rsa ek= gSaA 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;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa bl izØe ij ;g dguk lEHko ugha gS fd oLrqr% ;kph ds p;u ;k fu;qfDr 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;qfDr dk ik= ugha Fkk vFkok fu;qfDr ds fy, fdlh izdkj ls fu;ksZX; FkkA blh izdkj mlds fo:) ;g vk{ksi Hkh ugha gS fd mlds p;u ;k fu;qfDr esa cjrh xbZ fdlh vfu;ferrk esa mldh dksbZ lgHkkfxrk jgh gksA ,slh fLFkfr esa p;u lfefr ;k fu;qfDr vf/kdkjh }kjk xbZ fdlh =qfV nks"k ;k vfu;ferrk ds fy, ;kph dks u rks nks"kh dgk tk ldrk gS] u mls vU; fdlh izdkj ls mRrjnk;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 flfoy fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 87@1988 jkewjke cuke ckM+esj dks vkijsfVo 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;qfDr ugha djsaA fdUrq ,sls funsZ'k dh voekuuk djrs gq, izca/k funs'kd us ml ekeys ds ;kphx.k dks fu;qfDr ns nh FkhA bl fu;qfDr dks uohu iz'kkld us ckn esa vikLr dj fn;k ftl ij ;kphx.k jkewjke] v:.k dqekj] Hkaoj flag o vU; us fofHkUu fjV ;kfpdk;sa nk;j dj viuh viuh lsok eqfDr dks pqukSrh nhA mDr ekeys esa iwoksZDr f'koyky okys U;k; n`"VkUr dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, ;g er izdV fd;k x;k Fkk fd tks fu;qfDr gks pqdh Fkh mUgsa vikLr fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ugha Fkk] tcfd ,slh fu;qfDr esa ;kph dk dksbZ nks"k ugha FkkA gekjh lEefr esa mDr nksuksa U;k; n`"VkUr bl ekeys ds rF;ksa ij Hkh ykxw gksrs gSaA 10- ;gka ge ;g Li"V dj nsuk pkgsaxs fd gekjs dgus dk ;g rkRi;Z ugha gS fd p;u lfefr dks ;k fu;qfDr vf/kdkjh dks euekus <ax ls p;u ;k fu;qfDr 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;qfDr vf/kdkjh }kjk viukbZ xbZ izfØ;k esa dksbZ vfu;ferrk gks] ysfdu ,slh lfefr p;u dk xBu fof/kekU; gks vkSj fu;qfDr vf/kdkjh fu;qfDr ds fy, 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;qfDr ds QyLo:i lsok dks dsoy dfFkr vfu;ferrkvksa ds vk/kkj ij lekIr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA** 19. In view of above, respondent No. 3 is entitled to remain in service but, at the same time, this Court cannot lose sight of the claim of the petitioner for appointment being meritorious in the General category viz-a-viz respondent No. 3. Therefore, without disturbing appointment of respondent No. 3 the District & Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar is under obligation to provide appointment to the petitioner on the post of Stenographer. 20. On the basis of above discussion, this writ petition is allowed. District & Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar respondent No. 2 is directed to provide appointment to the petitioner forthwith on the post of Stenographer with effect from the date of order i.e., 30.4.2011, the date on which respondent No. 3 was provided appointment. However, the petitioner will not be entitled to wages from 31.4.2011 to the date of appointment but he shall be entitled for all other service benefits including seniority above respondent No. 3. 21. No order as to costs.