Judgment : Petitioner challenges the selection of the 3rd respondent in the 1st respondent society. According to the petitioner she is a person having a better rank than the 3rd respondent. But the 3rd respondent was appointed to the available post. The factual circumstances involved in the matter relate to the appointment to 8 posts in terms of Ext.P1 requisition made by the 1st respondent to the District Employment Officer. Ext. P2 is the rank list. The petitioner secured 122 marks. In the rank list for Muslim category the 3rd respondent obtained only 118 marks but he was given appointment as he was rank no. 1 in the Muslim category. 2. According to the petitioner when the rank list was prepared based on interview and other verifications conducted by the 1st respondent, they have to verify whether the petitioner is also entitled to get appointment under the reservation category of Muslim. Whereas according to the petitioner, she was considered only under the open category which is clearly wrong. 3. Counter affidavit is filed by the 1st respondent inter alia stating that the category wise list in regard to open category as well as reservation category have been forwarded by the Employment Exchange and on that basis the 1st respondent had conducted written test and interview and the rank list had been prepared. It is following the reservation list that have been followed by Employment Exchange that the 3rd respondent has given reservation. As far as the petitioner is concerned she had registered her name before the Employment Exchange only under the open category and for that reason when the Employment Exchange had sent the category wise list her name was included in the open category of candidates and therefore her rank was considered only under the open category. The 3rd respondent had registered before the Employment Exchange under the reservation category for Muslims and therefore the same was forwarded by the Employment Exchange in that manner and only such persons whose names had been sent under reservation category was considered for reservation by the 1st respondent. For that reason the 3rd respondent was given the employment though he had secured only 118 marks. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. 5. For that reason the 3rd respondent was given the employment though he had secured only 118 marks. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. 5. Having regard to the nature of contentions raised the question to be considered is whether the 1st respondent has to independently verify whether a particular candidate is entitled for any reservation or not. The Rule in this regard has been produced by the 1st respondent as Ext.R1(c) which would indicate that as far as the registration before Employment Exchange is concerned they prepare separate list for open category as well as reservation category. When names are called for selecting candidates from the Employment Exchange as evident from Ext. P2 the Employment Exchange usually sends category wise details of candidates who had applied under different categories. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had registered her name in the open category and therefore the petitioner had not so far been invited for selection on the basis of her having a reservation under Muslim category. 6. A statement is filed by the 2nd respondent supporting the stand taken by the other respondents. The 3rd respondent has also filed counter affidavit controverting the stand taken by the petitioner. 7. That being the situation, when an appointment is made through Employment Exchange, the category wise list of the Employment Exchange alone is to be taken into consideration and there is no reason why the 1st respondent should further consider whether any particular individual is entitled for reservation or not. If the petitioner had no such claim while registering before the Employment Exchange there is no reason to extend any reservation to the petitioner. For that reason, I do not think that the petitioner has any legal right to seek the employment as now given to the 3rd respondent. In the result, I do not find any reason to interfere with the appointment made by the 1st respondent as far as the 3rd respondent is concerned. Hence this writ petition is dismissed.