Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—Writ petition no.689/2013 has been filed by petitioners, namely, Dr. Deepak Najkani, Dr. Sanjay Choudhary, Dr. (Mrs.) Asma Khan, Dr. Sangeeta Saini and Dr. Arvind Kumar Kumawat, for quashment of selection made by respondent Rajasthan Public Service Commission on the basis of interview on the post of Homeopathic Chikitsak pursuant to advertisement no.4/2010-11. Further prayer is made for quashment of selection of respondents no.3 to 8 on the said post pursuant to aforementioned advertisement, with a direction to respondents to declare the petitioners to be duly selected on the said post or, in alternative, to hold fresh interview by giving weightage to the marks obtained in written examination confining the marks for interview only upto 15%. 2. Writ petition no.9392/2013 has been filed by petitioner Praveen Kumar for a direction to respondents to consider his candidature for appointment on the post of Homeopathic Chikitsak in Ayurveda Department of Government of Rajasthan, pursuant to advertisement no.4/2010-11, declaring him eligible for the same. Further prayer is made for quashment of selection made by interview for the post of Homeopathic Chikitsak pursuant to aforesaid advertisement with a direction to respondents no.1 and 2 to hold fresh interview for the said post giving weightage to the marks obtained in the written examination and confining the marks of interview only upto 15%. 3. Respondent Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short, 'the RPSC') issued an advertisement no.4/2010-11 dated 08.03.2011 inviting on-line applications from eligible candidates for filling up various posts of medical services in the State of Rajasthan. The said advertisement also invited applications for filling up 43 posts of Homeopathic Chikitsak under the Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homoeopathic and Natural Medical Service Rules, 1973 (for short, 'the Rules of 1973'), out of which 7 posts were reserved for Other Backward Class category and 1 post was reserved for disabled category of Locomotor Disability and Cerebral Palsy (L.D. & C.P.) & O.L. (one leg affected) or B.L. (both legs affected but not arms). The reservation for disabled category was horizontal and it was further provided that the disability must be above 40%. 4. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the RPSC received large number of applications for appointment. The RPSC conducted a written examination for screening them. The petitioners also appeared in the said examination held on 30.06.2011, result of which was declared on 06.07.2012. The result was displayed in the website of the RPSC. 4. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the RPSC received large number of applications for appointment. The RPSC conducted a written examination for screening them. The petitioners also appeared in the said examination held on 30.06.2011, result of which was declared on 06.07.2012. The result was displayed in the website of the RPSC. In all 184 candidates, including the petitioners, were shown successful. The interviews were held from 03.12.2012 to 14.12.2012. It was clearly mentioned in the call letters that request for change of date of interview will not be entertained. 5. Shri A.K. Bhandari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners in writ petition no.689/2013, and Shri Hoshiyar Singh Arya, learned counsel appearing for petitioner in writ petition no.9392/2013, have argued that large scale irregularities and illegalities were committed in the process of interview. The appointments were based entirely on interview. The law is well settled that appointments cannot be made only on the basis of interview. When the written examinations have been conducted by the RPSC, there is no reason why no weightage should be given to the marks obtained in the written examination. The marks of both i.e. of written as well as interview, should be considered for preparation of merit list. No weightage was given to the marks secured by the candidates in the written examination. Learned counsel for the petitioners in this connection relied on judgments of the Supreme Court in Tridip Kumar Dingal and Others vs. State of West Bengal and Others – (2009) 1 SCC 768 , Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi – (1981) 1 SCC 722 and Praveen Singh vs. State of Punjab – (2000) 8 SCC 633 . 6. It is argued that interview board was changed almost everyday. The interview board sometimes consisted of only one member of the RPSC and two or three experts, and sometimes it consisted of two members of the RPSC and one or two experts. The candidates were given free access to know the names of the members of the interview board to be constituted on a particular day. Some of the candidates were allowed to get the date of interview changed so as to have a board of their choice and convenience. The RPSC even called such candidates for interview, who failed to qualify the written examination and they were eventually selected. Some of the candidates were allowed to get the date of interview changed so as to have a board of their choice and convenience. The RPSC even called such candidates for interview, who failed to qualify the written examination and they were eventually selected. When the result was published in a daily newspaper on 15.12.2012, the petitioners were shocked to know that their names were not included in the select list. Name of petitioner no.2 in writ petition no.689/20123 was shown at no.2 in the reserve list. 7. Shri A.K. Bhandari, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in writ petition no.689/2013, submitted that in total five candidates were allowed to get their date of interview changed, which smacks of favouritism. Learned counsel in particular invited attention of the court towards the case of Dr. Rajendra Kumar Sharma, whose date of interview was changed. Earlier he was to be interviewed on 03.12.2012 but the date was changed to 14.12.2012 in order to get particular expert as member of the interview board, who were his teachers in the same college. Finally, the interview board before which he appeared, consisted of two experts, who were the teachers of the institutions where he studied. The interview board, which was constituted for 03.12.2012, consisted of subject experts who were from outside of Rajasthan and they were not known to Dr. Rajendra Kumar Sharma. This was the precise reason of his request for change of interview date, on the alleged basis of surgery of his father. The application for change of date of interview was submitted on 30.11.2012 without any supporting documents on record viz. the written advise of the doctor and diagnosis proof to show the urgency for undergoing surgery. 8. Shri A.K. Bhandari, learned Senior Counsel, has submitted that this court on 25.09.2013 took note of the allegations made by the petitioners and also the fact that the father of respondent no.6 was earlier admitted in the government hospital, Hindaun City on 02.12.2012 and then taken to Riya Hospital at Gangapur City, where he is said to have been admitted on 03.12.2012 at 6.15 Pm. His investigation report are of the same day i.e. 03.12.2012 and he was operated also on the same day. His investigation report are of the same day i.e. 03.12.2012 and he was operated also on the same day. The court was of the opinion that this was difficult to believe because one is to administer anesthesia before operation and for that purpose the patient is required to be kept empty stomach. Therefore, this court sent the documents submitted by respondent no.6 Dr. Rajendra Kumar Sharma along with the reply, to the Superintendent of Police, Karauli to find out as to when father of respondent no.6 was operated and admitted in hospital and was there any emergency for his surgery. He was further directed to find out as to when he was sent for Radiologist report because within few hours on 03.12.2012, everything is said to have been done as the respondent's father was admitted at 6.15 PM. This court by aforesaid order, while vacating the stay order in respect of other respondents, continued the interim order restraining the respondents to give appointment to respondent no.6. 9. Shri A.K. Bhandari, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that the respondents have illegally ignored the case of Dr. Asma Khan, petitioner no.3 in writ petition no.689/2013, who, despite being disabled candidate, was outstanding in merit. She was suffering from Residual Polio Right Lower Limb having 50% permanent disability. She belongs to LD&OL &CP category. It is contended that respondent no.4 Dr. Virendra Pal Singh Rawat, is shown to have been selected on his own merit in OBC category. It is alleged that roll number of Dr. Virendra Pal Singh Rawat was not included in the list of selected candidate. The interview of the petitioner no.3 Dr. Asma Khan and that of respondent Dr. Virendra Pal Singh Rawat was held on 04.12.2012. The interview board, which was constituted on 04.12.2012, consisted of subject expert Dr. Amiya Goswami, Principal of Rajasthan Vidhyapeeth Homoeopathic College Udaipur. Respondent Dr. Virendra Pal Singh Rawat was student of the same college and Dr. Amiya Goswami was the teacher of respondent Dr. Virendra Pal Singh Rawat. The expert Dr. Amiya Goswami thus obviously favoured respondent Dr. Virendra Pal Singh Rawat. While the petitioner obtained more than 70% marks in the written examination, the respondent no.4 Dr. Virendra Pal Singh Rawat failed in the written examination. 10. Shri A.K. Bhandari, learned Senior Counsel in writ petition no.689/2013, further argued that respondent no.7 Dr. Virendra Pal Singh Rawat. The expert Dr. Amiya Goswami thus obviously favoured respondent Dr. Virendra Pal Singh Rawat. While the petitioner obtained more than 70% marks in the written examination, the respondent no.4 Dr. Virendra Pal Singh Rawat failed in the written examination. 10. Shri A.K. Bhandari, learned Senior Counsel in writ petition no.689/2013, further argued that respondent no.7 Dr. Rajendra Kumar Aacharaya is shown to be selected in OBC category, whereas he is Brahmin by caste and falls in general category. He has produced a forged certificate regarding his status as an OBC category. It is argued that respondent no.3 Dr. Amit Bansal, who has not cleared the written examination, was called for interview and selected. Respondent no.8 Dr. Mukesh Goyal has concealed material facts and documents from the RPSC. The interview of petitioner no.1 Dr. Deepak Najkani was held on 03.12.2012. A group discussion was held at the time of interview of petitioner no.1 and at that time other candidates, namely, Dr. Manish Labana, Dr. Manmohan Meena and Dr. Ramswaroop Meena were also called for interview and group discussion. While the petitioner no.1 answered all the questions correctly in group discussion, the other three candidates failed to answer most of the questions. 11. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that respondent Dr. Virendra Pal Singh Rawat is shown to have been selected in OBC category on his own merit, having secured more marks than the cut off marks of OBC and therefore his selection cannot be taken against disabled quota. If he was selected on his own merit, his selection cannot be taken to have been made against disabled quota. If selection of respondent Virendra Pal Singh Rawat is counted in OBC category, then petitioner no.3 Dr. Asma Khan would be selected in disabled quota. Learned Senior Counsel, invited attention of the court towards para 5 of the additional affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary of the respondent RPSC, wherein it is contended that respondent Dr. Virendra Pal Singh Rawat had secured 56 marks and being candidate of OBC, he was selected automatically in his OBC merit even without taking advantage of physically handicapped category. 12. Virendra Pal Singh Rawat had secured 56 marks and being candidate of OBC, he was selected automatically in his OBC merit even without taking advantage of physically handicapped category. 12. Shri Hoshiyar Singh Arya, learned counsel for petitioner in writ petition no.9392/2013, while largely adopting the argument of Shri A.K. Bhandari, learned Senior Counsel for petitioners in writ petition no.689/2013, in addition submitted that petitioner Praveen Kumar, who belongs to SC category, has participated in the selection process for recruitment to 43 posts of Homeopathic Chikitsak. The process of selection undertaken by the RPSC was marred by number of irregularities and illegalities. Although the respondent RPSC held the written examination but it chose to describe it as screening test. It was not informed in advance that no weightage shall be given to the marks of written examination. The respondent RPSC has prepared the select list entirely on the basis of interview, which was wholly illegal. The respondent RPSC had shown 184 candidates as successful in the written examination to be called for interview, which were held from 03.12.2012 to 14.12.2012. In the call letters that were sent to the candidates, it was clearly mentioned that request for change of date of interview will not be accepted, yet such requests were liberally accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of the court towards Annexure no.3 annexed with the writ petition no.9392/2013. There was no consistency in the pattern of the constitution of the interview boards. In certain boards, only one member of the RPSC was there and in certain others, there were two members of the RPSC. So was the position with regard to experts. Sometimes there was only one expert and at certain times, there were two experts. Petitioners were given free hand to know the names of the members of the interview board. In fact, some of the candidates were permitted to get the date of interview so changed that could suit them. 13. Shri S.N. Kumawat, learned counsel for respondent RPSC, opposed the writ petitions and submitted that selection has been made by the RPSC strictly on the basis of merit of the candidates. The allegation of favouritism, irregularities or illegalities are emphatically denied. 13. Shri S.N. Kumawat, learned counsel for respondent RPSC, opposed the writ petitions and submitted that selection has been made by the RPSC strictly on the basis of merit of the candidates. The allegation of favouritism, irregularities or illegalities are emphatically denied. Since large number of candidates applied in response to the advertisement, the respondent RPSC had to conduct screening test for the purpose of short listing to narrow down the number of candidates to be called for interview. There was nothing illegal in adopting such process. The screening test was not a regular written test and therefore there was no necessity to give weightage to the marks obtained by the candidates in the screening test. The screening test was intended to call candidates three times the number of vacancies. Since the total number of vacancies advertised were only 43, 184 number of candidates were called. The allegation in the writ petition with regard to change of date of interview and to allow the candidate to chose the interview board consisting of the members of their choice and convenience in order to get better marks, is totally baseless. No allegation of any mala-fide has been made against any member of the interview board or the respondent RPSC. None of the members have been impleaded as party respondents by name. As regards the change in the date of interview at the instance of Dr. Rajendra Kumar Sharma, the respondent no.6 in writ petition no.689/2013, it is contended that this was only a genuine request. Originally, the date of his interview was 3.12.2012 but due to his request that his father was admitted in the govt. hospital, Hindaun City on 2.12.2012 and was then taken to Riya Hospital at Gangapur City, where he was admitted on 3.12.2012 at 6.15 Pm and operated, the date of his interview was changed on consideration the supporting documents proving serious illness of his father. He was therefore interviewed on 14.12.2012. All the medical documents, which the respondent no.6 Dr. Rajendra Kumar Sharma, produced before the RPSC, have been produced with their reply. 14. It is contended that even in the investigation conducted by the Supdt. He was therefore interviewed on 14.12.2012. All the medical documents, which the respondent no.6 Dr. Rajendra Kumar Sharma, produced before the RPSC, have been produced with their reply. 14. It is contended that even in the investigation conducted by the Supdt. of Police, Karauli, in pursuance of the directions of this court, it has been reported that father of the respondent no.6 was operated on 3.12.2012, therefore, it was a bonafide reason for which he was permitted to have change of the date of interview. It is contended that roll number of respondent Dr. Amit Bansal was not shown in the result declared by the respondent RPSC due to some inadvertent mistake. The RPSC by letter dated 23.11.2012 infor-med the respondent Dr. Amit Bansal that he has been declared successful and therefore he was called for interview. He participated and was selected. It is therefore wrong to suggest that he did not clear the written examination to be called for interview within three times the number of vacancies. 15. Shri S.N. Kumawat, learned counsel for the respondent RPSC, argued that the matter with regard to alleged irregularities has been explained in detail by the RPSC in the additional affidavit of its Deputy Secretary, who is the Officer-in-charge, filed on 14.07.2013. With regard to procedure of constitution of the interview board and for change of date of interview of Dr. Rajendra Kumar Sharma, the respondent no.6 in writ petition no.689/2013, it is contended that originally as against 43 posts, 186 candidates were declared successful for interview. Thereafter, objections were invited after publishing the answer key upto 15.10.2012. On examination of such objections by the experts, second result was declared on 29.10.2012 in which seven candidates were additionally declared pass for the interview and thus total 193 (186+7) candidates were found eligible for interview. In the process, however, two candidates were declared ineligible and thus 191 candidates were interviewed. Copy of the result dated 29.10.2012 has been placed on record. Dr. Virendra Pal Singh was interviewed as a physically handicapped person, and his selection was made at merit no.35 in the main list. There is nothing wrong in that procedure. Dr. Asma Khan, petitioner no.3 in writ petition no.689/2013, had secured only 47 marks in interview and thus she secured lesser marks than last candidate in her category, who got 50 marks, whereas Dr. There is nothing wrong in that procedure. Dr. Asma Khan, petitioner no.3 in writ petition no.689/2013, had secured only 47 marks in interview and thus she secured lesser marks than last candidate in her category, who got 50 marks, whereas Dr. Virendra Pal Singh Rawat secured 56 marks and being candidate of OBC, was taken to have been selected in OBC quota, even though he was physically handicapped candidate. 16. As regards the allegation against respondent Dr. Rajendra Kumar Acharya that he submitted forged certificate of OBC, his case was sent to Tehsildar for verification vide letter dated 14.01.2013, and the Tehsildar has informed that the certificate of Dr. Rajendra Kumar Acharya is correct and genuine as he being “Mahabrahmin” by caste, belongs to the OBC category. 17. Smt. Naina Saraf, learned counsel for Dr. Rajendra Kumar Sharma, respondent no.6, citing the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Anr. vs. National Federation of the Blind and Ors. (2013) 10 SCC 772 , argued that the Supreme Court therein relying on its earlier constitution bench judgment in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India – 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, held that reservation provided for disabled candidates has to be treated as horizontal and has to be provided within vertical reservation. Learned counsel therefore submitted that there was nothing illegal if the respondent Virendra Pal Singh Rawat has been counted against the quota of disabled, even though he is adjusted in OBC category. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Ors. (2007) 7 SCC 785. Smt. Naina Saraf, adopting the argu-ment of Shri S.N. Kumawat, additionally submitted that law of reservation has been correctly applied by the respondent RPSC and the State. A disabled candidate, despite his status as Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/Other Back-ward Class or even general, has to be still counted in disabled quota. Learned counsel in support of her argument also relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Swati Gupta (Ms) vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (1995) 2 SCC 560 and Anil Kumar Gupta and others vs. State of U.P. And Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 173 . 18. I have given my anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record. 19. So far case of Dr. (1995) 2 SCC 560 and Anil Kumar Gupta and others vs. State of U.P. And Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 173 . 18. I have given my anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record. 19. So far case of Dr. Rajendra Kumar Sharma, respondent no.6 in writ petition no.689/2013, who got his date of interview changed on the basis of serious ailment of his father, is concerned, this court vide order dated 25.9.2013, directed the Superintendent of Police, Karauli, to cause enquiry not only from record of the Riya Hospital but also of Government Hospital, Hindaun city, where his father was admitted at 5.00 PM on 2.12.2012, and find out the truth. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Circle Hindaun City, conducted the enquiry and sent the report to this Court through Government Advocate office vide letter dated 16.10.2013, stating that father of Dr. Rajendra Sharma was suffering from acute stagnation of urine and pain in stomach and thus was hospitalized on 30.11.2012 in the surgical ward of General Hospital, Hindaun City, when Dr. Ramhari Meena was on emergency duty. The urine problem was on account of prostate (TURP) and the only treatment was operation by laparoscopic and that facility was not available in the General Hospital, Hindaun City, therefore after primary treatment, he was referred by Dr. Jagdish Prasad Meena on 2.12.2012 to advanced center for further treatment and accordingly discharged on that date at 5.00 pm. On 3.12.2012 respondent no.6 took him to Dr. Mahendra Kumar Meena, the owner of Riya Hospital, Salod Mod, Gangapur City. His father was checked by Dr. Mukesh Meena, General Surgeon, and thereafter admitted in the said Hospital at 6.15 PM and certain diagnosis/tests were conducted in the hospital itself. On receipt of the test reports, the doctors found the urine problem on account of enlargement of his prostate (TURP). On account of acute stagnation of urine and pain in stomach, Dr. Mahendra Meena with team consisting of Dr. Mukesh Meena (General Surgeon), Dr. Ruchir Maheshwari (Surgeon), Dr. Anil Kumar Sharma (Anesthesia Doctor) and Compounder Shri Hargyan Meena, conducted the operation of the prostate (TURP) at 9.30 PM on 3.12.2012 at Riya Hospital, Gangapur City. Before the operation, the consent of his surgery was given by respondent no.6 Dr. Rajendra Sharma as his son on the prescribed proforma as anesthesia had to be administered to the patient. Anil Kumar Sharma (Anesthesia Doctor) and Compounder Shri Hargyan Meena, conducted the operation of the prostate (TURP) at 9.30 PM on 3.12.2012 at Riya Hospital, Gangapur City. Before the operation, the consent of his surgery was given by respondent no.6 Dr. Rajendra Sharma as his son on the prescribed proforma as anesthesia had to be administered to the patient. Father of respondent no.6 Dr. Rajendra Sharma remained hospitalized in that hospital from 3.12.2012 to 5.12.2012. In view of the above investigation report, it cannot be said that several documents that said Dr. Rajendra Sharma produced before the RPSC for change of the date of interview, were forged or fabricated or that it was not a genuine case of serious ailment of his father on 3.12.2012, the date originally fixed for his interview. The allegations against respondent no.6 Dr. Rajendra Sharma are therefore liable to be rejected and are accordingly rejected. 20. As regards other allegations of so-called irregularities or illegalities, the petitioners have not been able to substantiate the same. The respondents have clarified the case of respondent Dr. Amit Bansal. He was not shown as pass in the result originally declared by the respondent RPSC due to some inadvertent mistake. When the mistake was discovered, the respondent RPSC by letter dated 23.11.2012 informed the respondent Dr. Amit Bansal that he has been declared successful and therefore he was called for interview. He particularly participated and was selected. As regards the allegation against respondent Dr. Rajendra Kumar Acharya that he submitted forged certificate of OBC, the respondent RPSC got his case enquired from Tehsildar concerned, who informed that the certificate of Dr. Rajendra Kumar Acharya is correct and genuine as he belongs to the OBC category, being “Mahabrahmin” by caste. 21. Adverting now to the question of constitution of interview board, the respondents have clarified in their additional affidavit that generally the interview boards consist of two members of the RPSC and two members as subject experts but if there are more than one board on a given day and some members are not available at headquarters because of other reasons or on account of work of the RPSC, then along with one member of the RPSC, other member may be either retired member of the RPSC or the retired Vice Chancellor of any University, having an equal status and with the help of two subject experts, Board is constituted. The experts are generally renowned persons of the subject, who are selected in discretion of the Chairman. It has been further clarified that in order to maintain the impartiality of the Board, generally members of the RPSC are nominated while constituting interview board in the morning or evening session but about the constitution of the board, name of the member or experts are kept secret, which are disclosed just before the interview timing. If these clarifications are weighed as against the allegation made on a scale, it is clear that sch allegations are only vague, cryptic and general in nature and have not been substantiated. The petitioners have also not levelled specific allegations of mala-fide against members of the interview board. A bald allegation that some of the candidates managed to get their date of interview changed in order to have the interview board consisting of experts from the institution/colleges where they studied, cannot be the reason to hold that such members would necessarily be biased in favour of those candidates. Such coincidences are not unusual when the experts are drawn from institution/college/university of a particular subject in which subject candidates have also studied in a particular State. 22. Coming now to the selection of Dr. Virendra Pal Singh Rawat, respondent no.4 in writ petition no.689/2013, as disabled candidate even when his selection is shown as OBC candidate, the law on the subject is well settled that the reservation in favour of the persons with disabilities is horizontal reservation provided under Art. 16(1) of the Constitution, whereas reservation provided to OBC relates to Art. 16(4) of the Constitution. The constitution bench of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India, supra, in para 812 of the judgment has succinctly stated the position of law on that aspect, as under:- "All reservations are not of the same nature. 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 Castes, 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. The reservations in favour of Scheduled Castes, 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. To be more precise, suppose 3% of the vacancies are reserved in favour of physically handicapped persons; this would be a reservation relatable to clause (1) of Article 16. The persons selected against the quota 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." 23. The same view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in recently delivered judgment in Union of India and Another vs. National Federation of the Blind and others, supra. 24. A larger bench of this court in Sheikh Mohd. Afzal and Another vs. The State of Rajasthan and Another – 2008(1) WLC (Raj.) 186, while dealing with the case of a handicapped candidates, who was admitted to MBBS Course held that his selection has to be counted against general category. 25. The cited judgment of the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Gupta, supra, is also to the same effect that horizontal reservation seats are required to be distributed amongst the vertical reservation. Although therein it was held that while allocating the special reservation students to their respective social reservation category, the over-all reservation in favour of special reservation categories has yet to be honoured. It would be better had the respondents specified the horizontal reservation in each of the categories i.e. SC/ST/OBC and other categories separately, but here in the present case total number of posts were only 43 and 3% reservation worked out to only one post, therefore any of the disabled candidate in any of these four categories with highest merit had to be selected, and his selection shall have to be taken against disabled quota as well. In other words, whichever social category disabled candidate may belong, his selection, despite being made in disabled category, has to be counted against any one of those four categories. If Dr. In other words, whichever social category disabled candidate may belong, his selection, despite being made in disabled category, has to be counted against any one of those four categories. If Dr. Virendra Pal Singh Rawat is having comparatively higher merit, action of the respondents in selecting him rather than petitioner Dr. Asma Khan, cannot be faulted. The Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria, supra, has explained the law and the manner in which the horizontal reservation (Special) with reference to Article 16(1) of the Constitution has to be worked out and applied vis-a-vis vertical (social) reservation. In that case, the number of candidates belonging to special reservation groups (women) were selected on merit in general category and Scheduled Caste. However, the further reservation was provided to women category by moving downwards to pick up additional women candidates. Such a procedure was held to be illegal by the Supreme Court. 26. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. This also disposes of stay applications. 27. Since this disposes of two writ petitions, office to place a photo copy of this order in another writ petition.