JUDGMENT : B.K. Dash, J. The applicant who is a candidate for the post of Junior Clerk pursuant to advertisement dtd. 23.7.10 and 2.3.11 has approached this Tribunal to quash the select list Annexure-8 and to appoint her as a Junior Clerk. 2. The case of the applicant is that pursuant to the advertisement No. 1238 dtd. 23.7.2010, she applied for the post of Junior Clerk in the District Office, Khurda. Again in response to another advertisement dtd. 2.3.11 (Annexure-5) she submitted her application. Considering her application, admit card bearing Roll No. A0273 was issued and she appeared in the written test on 12.6.11. She came out successful in the written test and her name appeared in the list of successful candidates of SEBC category at Sl. No. 39 (Annexure-8). As per advertisement, though 61 posts were available, yet more than 70 candidates were given appointment, but the applicant was not appointed. She therefore, approached the Collector, Khurda vide her letter dtd. 19.04.12 at Annexure-9 and the Collector, Khurda intimated in his letter No. 989 dtd. 3.7.12 that the lowest mark in the merit list is 145 and the highest mark is 329 and as the applicant has secured 211 out of 400 marks in the written test and computer skill test, in the U.R. category she was not selected. The claim of the applicant is that she belongs to S.E.B.C. category and as she has secured 211 marks, she is eligible for appointment, but she has been deprived of appointment on a false plea that she belongs to U.R. category. 3. Resp. No. 2 filed counter stating that advertisement No. 1238 dtd. 23.7.2010 for 26 posts was issued, but the recruitment could not be conducted during the year 2010 for which another advertisement vide No. 498 dtd. 21.3.11 was issued for 35 posts of Junior Clerk. In the said advertisement, it was made clear that the candidates who have applied with reference to earlier advertisement No. 1238 dtd. 23.7.10 need not apply again. The recruitment was conducted for 130 posts which include Revenue Administration, Directorate of Treasuries and Inspection and Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes; Puri Range, Puri & Bhubaneswar Range, out of Which 81 posts meant for Revenue Administration. In total 95 candidates were given appointment. 23.7.10 need not apply again. The recruitment was conducted for 130 posts which include Revenue Administration, Directorate of Treasuries and Inspection and Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes; Puri Range, Puri & Bhubaneswar Range, out of Which 81 posts meant for Revenue Administration. In total 95 candidates were given appointment. Though the applicant applied as a S.E.B.C. candidate, the certificate which she had submitted was not accepted as the said certificate relates to the year 2002 for the reason that S.E.B.C. certificate is link-ed with income ceiling. The certificate which the applicant submitted was for the financial year 2002-2003 only. Further, last candidate in U.R. category has secured 257, marks whereas the applicant has secured 211 marks, for which she could not be selected. Since the applicant has not secured position in the select list as a U.R. candidate, she was found not eligible for appointment and accordingly no appointment order was issued in her favour. 4. The applicant filed a rejoinder to the counter contending that as she had applied pursuant to the advertisement in the year 2010 and was not required to submit fresh application, she did not file any S.E.B.C. certificate pursuant to advertisement of the year 2011. The applicant has secured 211 marks which is more than the marks secured by the last S.E.B.C. candidate. The S.E.B.C. certificate was duly issued by the Tahasildar Begunia which cannot be discarded and basing on the said certificate she is to be treated as a S.E.B.C. category and eligible for appointment. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was allowed to appear in the written test as well as in the interview treating her as a candidate belonging to S.E.B.C. category. The select list of candidates for practical skill test in computer has also been published showing the applicant as a candidate belonging to S.E.B.C. When the applicant has been accepted as a candidate belonging to S.E.B.C. category, there is no scope for the respondents to treat her as a U.R. Candidate and deprive her from appointment. In support of his submission he relied on the decision reported in AIR 1976 SC 376 (Shri Krishna appellant vrs. Kurukhetra University, Kurukhetra) and AIR 1990 SC 1075 (Sanatan Gouda v. Berhampur University). In support of his submission he relied on the decision reported in AIR 1976 SC 376 (Shri Krishna appellant vrs. Kurukhetra University, Kurukhetra) and AIR 1990 SC 1075 (Sanatan Gouda v. Berhampur University). Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that since the applicant has secured 211 marks which is more than the mark secured by the last S.E.B.C. candidate, she has a right to be appointed against the post of Junior Clerk. 6. Learned Govt. advocate basing on the averment made in the counter submitted that the applicant was treated as an U.R. candidate, as the S.E.B.C. certificate which she had submitted relates to the year 2002 which was invalid as the same was based on the income of the family, for the financial year 2002-2003. As the applicant has secured 211 marks which is less than the mark secured by the last U.R. candidate, she was not selected for the post of Junior Clerk and the applicant has no claim or any grievance to make Learned Govt. Advocate also based on a letter of the Govt. of Orissa in Minorities and Backward Classes Welfare Department No. 880 dtd. 24.10.08 showing that the income limit to determine the creamy layer among OBC has been raised from 2.5 lacs to 4.5 lacs. The applicant therefore cannot be considered as a S.E.B.C. candidate for the post she has applied for and no illegality has been committed denying her appointment as he was not a successful candidate. 7. Admittedly, one advertisement was published vide No. 1328 dtd. 23.7.10 for 26 posts of Junior Clerk and again advertisement No. 498 dtd. 21.3.2011-wcis issued for 35 posts. In the 2nd advertisement it was clearly mentioned that candidates applied previously in response to advertisement No. 1328 dtd. 23.7.10, need not apply again and they would be given opportunity to complete in the recruitment examination. With reference to the first Advertisement, the applicant submitted her application as a S.E.B.C. candidate. It is averred in the counter filed by Resp. No. 2 that the applicant had secured 211 marks and the last candidate in U.R. category had secured 257 marks. There is no discrepancy in the marks secured by the applicant which she has obtained under the R.T.I. Act. As per the information obtained under the R.T.I. Act vide letter No. 1090 dtd. No. 2 that the applicant had secured 211 marks and the last candidate in U.R. category had secured 257 marks. There is no discrepancy in the marks secured by the applicant which she has obtained under the R.T.I. Act. As per the information obtained under the R.T.I. Act vide letter No. 1090 dtd. 19.7.12, the lowest mark in S.E.B.C. category in the final merit list of Junior Clerk is 188 which is admittedly less than the mark secured by the applicant. Thus from the above document, it is clear that the applicant had secured more marks than the last S.E.B.C. candidate. The only plea taken by the respondents denying her appointment is her candidature in S.E.B.C. category which was not accepted and in the U. Rcategory she has secured less mark than the last candidate. The applicant applied for the post as a S.E.B.C. candidate and her candidature was accepted in the said category which is evident from the select list prepared for practical skill test in computer where her name appears at Sl. No. 39. The question now is whether she can be denied the benefit of S.E.B.C. candidate, when once she was admitted to appear in the recruitment as a candidate of SEBC category, as because the S.E.B.C. Certificate which she had produced relate to the year 2002. The applicant was admitted for the written test, computer practical test treating her as a S.E.B.C. candidate. If the certificate relating to the year 2002 was not acceptable, the applicant should not have been admitted for the written or any subsequent tests as a S.E.B.C. candidate. No where in the advertisement, any stipulation was made that the S.E.B.C. certificate must relate to the particular year in which she was appearing in the examination. The applicant produced S.E.B.C. certificate for the year 2011, 2012 and 2013 which were issued by the Tahasildar, Begunia in Misc. Case No. 622 dtd. 01.08.2011, Misc. Case No. 1105 dtd. 13.09.12 and Misc. Case No. 917 dtd. 12.8.13. She has also produced income certificate showing that she does not belong any creamy layer. The documents submitted by the applicant have not been disputed or refuted by any of the authorities nor has been denied that she belongs to S.E.B.C. category. Case No. 622 dtd. 01.08.2011, Misc. Case No. 1105 dtd. 13.09.12 and Misc. Case No. 917 dtd. 12.8.13. She has also produced income certificate showing that she does not belong any creamy layer. The documents submitted by the applicant have not been disputed or refuted by any of the authorities nor has been denied that she belongs to S.E.B.C. category. When once her candidature has been accepted as a S.E.B.C. candidate, there is no scope for the respondent to deny her the benefit of the said category. In this regard, it is profitable to rely on the decision reported in AIR 1976 SC 734 , (Shri Krishna appellant v. Kurukhetra University, Kurukhetrra) wherein it is held that:- "It is therefore manifest that once the appellant was allowed to take the examination rightly or wrongly, when the statute which empowers the University to withdraw the candidature of the applicant has worked itself out and the applicant cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity which should have been looked into before giving the applicant permission to appear." Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanatan Gauda ( AIR 1990 SC 1075 ) also held as follows:- "This is apart from the fact that I find that in the present case the appellant while securing his admission in the Law College had admittedly submitted his mark-sheet along with the application for admission. The Law College had admitted him. He had pursued his studies for two years. The University had also granted him the admission card for the Pre-Law and Intermediate Law examination. He was permitted to appear in the said examinations. He was also admitted to the final year of the course. It is only at the stage of the declaration of his results of the Pre-Law and Inter-Law examination that the University raised the objection to his so-called ineligibility to be admitted to the Law Course. The University is, therefore, clearly estopped from refusing to declare the results of the appellant's examination or from preventing his from pursuing his final year course." Relying on the ratio of the above decisions, the respondents once accepted the applicant as a candidate of SEBC category and allowed her to appear in the recruitment test, there is no scope to treat her as U.R. candidate. Once she is treated as S.E.B.C. candidate-as she has secured more marks than the last S.E.B.C. candidate, she has to be selected and appointed against the post of Junior Clerk. It appears from the counter filed by Resp. No. 2 that recruitment was made for 130 posts out of which 81 posts relate to District Revenue Administration. In total, 95 candidates were given appointment from S.C., S.T., S.E.B.C. and U.R. category. In the advertisement as at Annexure-5 it was shown that 18 posts were meant for S.E.B.C. category, out of which six posts were reserved for woman. Since the applicant has secured 211 marks, which is more than the mark secured by last S.E.B.C. candidate, she is eligible for appointment as a junior clerk. The merit list which is prepared vide Annexure-8 is therefore liable to be quashed. However in stead of quashing the merit list Resp. No. 1 is directed to revise the merit list treating the applicant as a S.E.B.C. candidate and fix up her seniority in the merit list and consider to issue appointment order w.e.f. the date her juniors in the merit list were appointed and her pay be fixed from that date notionally with actual financial benefit with effect from the date she actually joined her duty. It is not out of place to say that while working out the position of the applicant in the merit list, there is every possibility that the last man in S.E.B.C. category may be disturbed and even his/her appointment is likely to be cancelled. Such appointment of the candidate would be cancelled without any opportunity being given to him/her. In such an event principle of natural justice would be in respect of the said candidate and it is not known who that candidate is. In the event, the appointment of the last candidate would be cancelled, we direct not to adopt such procedure as his/her suffering would be due to executive brinkmanship and to mitigate such a situation, it is directed that the last candidate whose appointment is likely to be cancelled, may be accommodated by issuing a fresh appointment order on ad hoc basis till his regularization against any available/future vacancy and during such ad hoc period he/she should not claim any financial/service benefits. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the O.A. is allowed and the Resp. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the O.A. is allowed and the Resp. No. 2 is directed to revise the merit list by including the applicant and to appoint her as a Junior Clerk pursuant to advertisement No. 1238 dtd. 23.7.2010/2.3.11 and issue appointment order treating her as S.E.B.C. candidate and extend the benefit of such appointment as observed in the forgoing paragraph. The entire exercise be completed within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of a copy of his order. With these orders, the O.A. is disposed of.