JUDGMENT : Bansi Lal Bhat, J.:- 1. No one appeared on 31.02.2005 on behalf of respondents. Same is the position today. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.09.2000 of the writ Court in SWP No. 1831/1997 titled 'Prithvi Pal Singh v. JKSSRB and Ors." by virtue whereof the appellants were directed to adjust respondent No. 1 against any available vacancy of Medical Assistant in district Kathua. 2. The case set up by respondent No. 1-Prithvi Pal Singh before the writ Court was that 17 posts of Medical Assistants were advertised by JKSSRB (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Board") against Kathua District. The selection process was undertaken. However, respondent No. 1 remained unsuccessful. He assailed his non-selection as according to him he had obtained higher merit. The appellants pleaded before the writ court that out of 17 posts, only 9 posts were meant for the General Category, 4 posts were reserved for RBA category and 2 posts each were reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Categories. The last candidate selected in Open Merit Category is said to have obtained 57.60 points whereas respondent No. 1 is said to have obtained only 57.32 points. Thus, respondent No. 1 ranked low to the last selected candidate in OM category. 3. The learned writ Court found that since the appellants had not indicated the categories for which the selection was to be made and had not mentioned that any reservation was to be made in the selection to the post of Medical Assistants, the Board could not make selection for reserved categories which had not been mentioned in the Advertisement Notice. 4. Learned writ Court relied upon judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in 1977 (1) SLR 69 wherein it was held that the effect of amendment of rules retrospectively, when the selection process was nearing completion, was to nullify the entire process of selection and consideration. It found that since the vacancies for the reserved categories had not been notified, the decision taken later to keep some vacancies for reserved categories could not be justified. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and respondent No. 1 was held entitled to appointment on the basis of merit obtained by him in OM Category. 5. It found that since the vacancies for the reserved categories had not been notified, the decision taken later to keep some vacancies for reserved categories could not be justified. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and respondent No. 1 was held entitled to appointment on the basis of merit obtained by him in OM Category. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and wading through the record, we find that the view adopted by the learned writ Court is not sustainable. A bare perusal of the Advertisement Notice in question would reveal that applications were invited from permanent residents of the State for a number of posts indicated in Annexure-A of Advertisement Notice No. 3 of 1997 dated 29.04.1997. This was done under Special Recruitment Drive announced by the Government. The district cadre posts of Medical Assistants in the scale of 950-1500 figured at Serial No. 146 and in regard to district Kathua, the vacancy position was shown as "17". Though the Advertisement Notice did not give the category wise break up of posts, it did not stipulate that these posts were meant to be filled in only from the Open Merit Category. The aspiring candidates, belonging to reserved categories, were required to support their application forms with Reserved Category Certificates issued under SRO 126 of 1994. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that the reservation was applicable. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants that out of 17 posts, 9' posts were meant for General/Open Merit Category, 4' for RBA Category and 2' each for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Categories. This break up of vacancy position was indicated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of appellants. The breakup of vacancy position conformed to provisions of SRO 126 of 1994 styled as Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 1994. It is further pointed out that out of 17 posts, only 14 candidates were recommended by the Board and 3 posts remained unfilled because of non-availability of suitable candidates of the respective categories. The unfilled posts included one of RBA category and 2 of Scheduled Tribe category. In so far as the 9 posts of General/Open Merit Category are concerned, the same were filled up in entirety. The unfilled posts included one of RBA category and 2 of Scheduled Tribe category. In so far as the 9 posts of General/Open Merit Category are concerned, the same were filled up in entirety. Thus, the petitioner could not be given the benefit of filling one of the unfilled posts as such posts remained unfilled under the reserved category and petitioner did not stake his claim to any reserved category. 6. Benefit of reservation under the statutory rules known as Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 1994 notified vide SRO 126 of 1994 [JKS Soft JKS/2847] being available on the date the selection process was set in motion and the date the same culminated in selection of 14 candidates against 17 vacancies of Medical Assistants of Kathua district with all the 9 Open Merit Categories being filled, reliance on judgment of Punjab and Haryana High court appears to be misplaced. This was not a case of introducing reservation clause during process of selection. The benefit of reservation was available on the date selection process was undertaken. Same was available on the date the process was completed. It was not a case of introduction of Rule midstream to nullify the process of selection. Though no breakup of vacancy positions category wise was provided in the Advertisement Notice, SRO 126 of 1994 was in force and meant to apply in all forms as is clearly discernable from the terms of the Advertisement Notice. Admittedly the last selected candidate under Open Merit Category was more meritorious than respondent No. 1, the former having secured 57.60 points whereas respondent No. 1 had secured only 57.32 points. It being manifestly clear that respondent No. 1 was less meritorious and his merit ranked well below the last selected candidate, his claim for selection could not be entertained and the benefit sought to be conferred on him in terms of the impugned judgment was unwarranted as respondent No. 1 had never staked his claim under any of the reserved categories. Respondent No. 1 was not entitled to claim selection against an unfilled post as all the 3 unfilled posts belonged to the reserved categories. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned judgment cannot be supported. Appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned judgment dated 27.09.2000 is set aside.