ORDER It is evident from Annexure-3 which has been brought on record by the petitioner himself that the post on which petitioner was selected and appointed as a panchayat teacher was reserved for scheduled caste female candidate. This was the roster position which is not being disputed by the petitioner. While challenging Annexure-7 the thrust of the argument of the petitioner is that in absence of availability of female candidate belonging to scheduled caste, a male candidate belonging to scheduled caste was picked up by the Gram Panchayat. His appointment is being challenged after more than eighteen months which has also been entertained and decided to the detriment of the present petitioner who is seeking quashing of the order in the above stated background. 2. The benefit of reservation and roster point cannot be permitted to be invalidated on the question of unavailability of a candidate in that category. If the candidate was not available for filing up the post at that point of time, the vacancy would be required to be advertised fresh. An ineligible person, not belonging to the category of reserved class, cannot occupy the position in the garb of unavailability of candidate of such category. 3. Even otherwise, looking at the way such appointments have been made by the Mukhiya and the Gram Panchayat Secretary, their defence before the Tribunal of unavailability raises due suspicion specially when there is large scale unemployment in the State and there is denial of employment on one pretext or the other. 4. It is difficult for the Court to accept that female category candidate belonging to scheduled caste was not available at the relevant time for appointment. 5. Petitioner’s appointment on the post reserved for scheduled caste female category is illegal and his continuance on the post cannot be permitted. 6. The writ application is dismissed being devoid of merit.