JUDGMENT : D.H. Waghela, C.J. 1. The present petition is preferred against the order dated 04.10.2015 of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 2627 of 2013. The petitioner herein was joined as respondent No. 4 before the Tribunal and the final order of the Tribunal reads as under:-- "11. In view of the above analysis it is clearly seen that respondent No. 3 O.P.S.C. recommended the name of private respondent No. 4 for appointment in pursuance to advertisement No. 9 at Annexure-I in P.H.O.H. category, when in the tests the applicant has secured 197 marks and respondent No. 4 has secured only 66 marks. This is wholly against the principles of recruitment, principles of equity and hence illegal. O.A. is therefore allowed. The result of selection published by O.P.S.C. at annexure-5 dated 24.08.2013 so far it relates to selection of respondent No. 4 to the post of Junior Lecturer in Physics in P.H. (O.H.) category is quashed. The applicant securing much higher marks in P.H. (O.H.) category than respondent No. 4 is entitled to be considered for recommendation in P.H. (O.H.) category for the post of Lecturer pursuant to advertisement No. 9. State respondents are therefore, directed to offer him appointment and extend all the service benefits with effect from the date from which other selected candidates whose names found place in Annexure-5 got such appointment along with all service and consequential benefits. Entire exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt a copy of this order. With these orders O.A. is accordingly disposed of." 2. By virtue of the above order, the selection made in favour of the present petitioner stands quashed and hence, being aggrieved, he has approached this Court. It would be more convenient to name the contesting parties herein in order to avoid the confusion by calling them as petitioner and respondents. 3. The simple facts of this case are that Shri Bijaya Kumar Sahoo, who belonged to Physical Handicapped (P.H./O.H. category) was a candidate for the post of Lecturer in Physics and he participated in the selection process conducted by the Odisha Public Service Commission. He was aggrieved by the result of the selection as published by O.P.S.C. on 24th August, 2013, insofar as Shri Santi Bhusan Pandey was selected. He was aggrieved by the result of the selection as published by O.P.S.C. on 24th August, 2013, insofar as Shri Santi Bhusan Pandey was selected. There is no dispute about the facts that both Shri Bijaya Kumar Sahoo and Shri Santi Bhusan Pandey had undergone the selection process and the O.P.S.C. had published the total marks secured by the candidates in written test as well as viva voce. According to that result, Shri Sahoo has secured 152 marks in written test and 45 marks in the viva voce with the grand total of 197 marks; whereas Shri Pandey secured 46 marks in written test and 20 marks in viva voce test totaling to 66 marks. Both the candidates belonged to Physically Disabled category and hence, Shri Sahoo approached the Tribunal when the O.P.S.C. failed to recommend his name for the appointment. The Tribunal has, in the impugned order, taken the view that selection in the horizontal category, i.e. P.H./Ex-servicemen persons/Sports person etc. was a condition precedent to the placement of such selected candidates in appropriate category. Therefore, Shri Sahoo was entitled to be selected on the basis of his performance irrespective of vertical reservation in the categories of S.C./S.T./S.E.B.C. or U.R. 4. As against the above reasoning, learned Senior counsel, Shri R.K. Rath appearing for the petitioner, Shri Pandey, vehemently argued that while submitting his application to O.P.S.C., Shri Sahoo had specifically mentioned the letters, "S.E.B.C. in item No. 8 (a) for mentioning the community, to which the candidate belonged. He relied upon the photo copy of the application form of Shri Sahoo. To further emphasise that, as against the column for "category of vacancy against which applied for", Shri Sahoo had clearly mentioned the letters "S.E.B.C.", which left no doubt that he had applied for the post in the reserved category of S.E.B.C. He further submitted on that basis that if any vacancy were not available for the S.E.B.C. candidate in the recruitment in question, his mark could not be compared with the marks of Shri Pandey, whose candidature was admittedly considered in the Un-reserved category. Learned Senior counsel relied upon the decision of the apex Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Others, and Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Dalbir Singh and Another, . 5. Learned Senior counsel relied upon the decision of the apex Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Others, and Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Dalbir Singh and Another, . 5. It was argued for the petitioner that Shri Sahoo cannot be allowed to compete in the category, in which he had not applied. The latter decision of the apex Court in Dalbir Singh (supra) was pressed to emphasise the observation that the candidate having opted to consider his case only under O.B.C. category, he cannot thereafter claim that his case was required to be considered on the general merit, only because he scored better percentage of marks than the last selected candidate in the general merit. It may be pertinent to note here that in the facts of that case the advertisement was issued separately for general and O.B.C. categories and pursuant to such advertisement, the applicant had applied against O.B.C. category and not under general category and, therefore, his name was not considered under the general category. 6. Applying the ratio of aforesaid judgments in the facts of the present case, it has to be noted that the Advertisement No. 9 of 2011-12 for recruitment of Junior Lecturer in Physics in Odisha Education Service (Group-B) was issued with the last date for receipt of application being 15th February, 2012. The vacancy position in the advertisement was in a tabular form. As for the posts of Junior Lecturers in the discipline of Physics, total number of vacancies was 37 and reservation for S.T. & S.C. was 18 and 8 respectively. There was a column for S.E.B.C. but no vacancy was mentioned in that column, which clearly indicated that the vacancy in the reserved category where only 18 and 8 and only for S.T. & S.C. and none for S.E.B.C. The other columns indicated U.R., i.e. "Unreserved" category with the number as 11, whereas column Nos. 8 and 9 indicated two posts for P.H.(Physical Handicapped) and one vacancy for Ex-servicemen. Thus, undisputably, there was no reservation or vacancy in the S.E.B.C. category. 8 and 9 indicated two posts for P.H.(Physical Handicapped) and one vacancy for Ex-servicemen. Thus, undisputably, there was no reservation or vacancy in the S.E.B.C. category. Therefore, when Shri Sahoo mentioned in his application-form the category of vacancy, against which he had applied, the words, "S.E.B.C." It did not and could not amount to claiming a post in the non-extant reserved category and the only other category, in which, his candidature could have been considered, was in the general or "Unreserved" category. Shri Sahoo and Shri Pandey both being entitled to the benefit of horizontal reservation in "Physically Handicapped" category, the criteria to choose one from the two could only be merit indicated by the marks obtained by them in the written test and viva voce test. Mere fact of Shri Sahoo mentioning his belonging to S.E.B.C. or may be even inadvertently or consciously trying to take the benefit of the status of belonging to the category of S.E.B.C. by itself did not disqualify him from competing on merit when candidates in the special category of Physically Handicapped were to be considered, nor can Shri Pandey steal a march over Shri Sahoo only because of the mentioning of this community as S.E.B.C. by Shri Sahoo. 7. In the above facts and circumstances, the legal propositions applied by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment are unexceptionable and no reason to interfere with the conclusions and final order are made out. Therefore, the petition is dismissed at the threshold along with the misc. case filed therein. Final Result : Dismissed