JUDGMENT : R.R. Prasad, J. 1. When five vacancies for the post of Nursing Sisters did occur in the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), DPC undertook process for promotion to the said posts from among Staff Nurses. The DPC recommended four persons belonging to General category and one person belonging to Scheduled Caste for being promoted on the posts of Nursing Sister. Accordingly, respondent No.3 was appointed on promotion as Nursing Sister against the post of Scheduled Caste category whereas four persons of General category were promoted, vide, order dated 6.2.2008 passed by the respondent No.1, RIMS. That order was challenged by the writ petitioner in WP(C) No.257 of 2008 on the ground that the writ petitioner being senior to respondent No.3 should have been appointed, but the authority ignoring the claim of the writ petitioner appointed respondent No.3, on promotion, as Nursing Sister and thereby did commit illegality. 2. The stand which was taken on behalf of the respondent RIMS as well as respondent No.3 is that the total strength of Nursing Sister is fifty six, for which, roster was prepared in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Sabharwal Vs. State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 745 . During consideration of the case for promotion, DPC did find that against fifty six posts of Nursing Sisters, eight posts are reserved for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and four, belonging to Scheduled Tribe candidates, in terms of the percentage. But in fact, twenty two candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribe category had occupied the posts though only four posts were meant for them. Unlike to it, none of the post was occupied by a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste though eight seats were available for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes. In that event, four candidates belonging to General categories were appointed on promotion when vacancies occurred due to superannuation of the candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribe category and respondent No.3 being a candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe category was appointed on the vacant post and thereby the writ petitioners belonging to General category could not be accommodated. 3. In that event, four candidates belonging to General categories were appointed on promotion when vacancies occurred due to superannuation of the candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribe category and respondent No.3 being a candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe category was appointed on the vacant post and thereby the writ petitioners belonging to General category could not be accommodated. 3. The learned single Judge, having found the decision being taken by the respondent absolutely in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.K. Sabharwal’s case (Supra) did not find the claim of the writ petitioners tenable and accordingly rejected the writ petition. Being aggrieved with that order, this intra court appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioners. 4. The contention which was advanced on behalf of the appellants is that before roster of fifty six point was made by the authority in terms of the direction issued by the Central Government, pursuant to the decision rendered in the case of R.K. Sabharwal (supra), promotional posts like that of Nursing Sisters were being filled up in accordance with merit of the Nursing Staffs but only when the turn of the petitioners came for being promoted, the authority did apply the said rule relating to roster. Whereas, subsequent to the decision taken against the petitioners, the same is being not followed and thereby the action of the respondent being arbitrary cannot be held to be tenable. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the rule which was being followed earlier should have been followed by the authority in view of the decision rendered in the case of Manipur Electronics Development Corporation & Ors Vs Manipur Human Rights Commission & Anr: 2006 (Suppl) 1 GLT 42 as well as State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr Vs Santosh Kumar Mishra & Anr., (2010) 9 SCC 52 , holding therein that different interpretation of same rules at two different points relating to same persons is not permissible. 5. We, having heard learned counsel for the parties, do not find any substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the appellants. It be stated that in the case of R.K. Sabharwal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that reservation of jobs for the General, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and OBC should apply to posts and not to vacancy. It be stated that in the case of R.K. Sabharwal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that reservation of jobs for the General, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and OBC should apply to posts and not to vacancy. The Court further held that the vacancy based roster can operate till such time as the representation of persons belonging to the reserved categories, in the cadre, reaches the prescribed percentages of reservation. Pursuant to that decision, the Union of India came with the Office Memorandum dated 20.07.1997, explaining the manner in which the roster has to be prepared, which is being reflected in para 1 of the said explanatory note, stipulating therein, the manner in which, it is to be worked out. The said para 1 of the Explanatory Note reads as follows. “1. At the point of initial operation of the roster, it will be necessary to determine the actual representation of the incumbents belonging to different categories in cadre vis-à-vis the points earmarked for each category, viz. SC/ST/OBC and General in the roster. This may be done by plotting the appointments made against each point of roster starting with the earliest appointee. Thus, if the earlier appointee in the cadre happens to be a candidate belonging to the Schedule Castes, against point No.1 of the roster, the remark “utilized by SC” shall be entered. If the next appointee is a general category candidate, the remark “utilized by general category” shall be made against point No.2 and so on and so forth till all appointments are adjusted in the respective rosters. In making these adjustments, SC/ST/OBC candidates on merit, in direct recruitment, shall be treated as general category candidates.” 6. Thus, we do find that methodology is there in the said explanatory note to work out to determine the actual representation of the incumbents belonging to different categories. Here, in the instant case, as has been stated above, the roster of fifty six points, which was the cadre strength of Nursing Sister, was prepared in terms of the Office Memorandum issued by the Union of India. It was found that four posts were reserved for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribe. Here, in the instant case, as has been stated above, the roster of fifty six points, which was the cadre strength of Nursing Sister, was prepared in terms of the Office Memorandum issued by the Union of India. It was found that four posts were reserved for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribe. But in fact, twenty two candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribe had occupied the posts meant for Scheduled Tribes, whereas eight posts reserved for the Scheduled Caste, had not been occupied by any of the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste category. In that event, when five vacancies did occur, four persons belonging to General category were appointed on promotion on the posts of Nursing Sisters. Likewise, the respondent No.3 was appointed against the post which was meant for the candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste. Thus, in that event, the learned single Judge did arrive to the conclusion that the authority was absolutely justified in passing the order dated 6.2.2008. 7. We, for the reasons stated above, also do find that the authority was justified in passing the said order as the same was based on the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and thereby the authority cannot be said to have committed wrong in ignoring rule which was in existence earlier and thereby cases referred to on behalf of the appellants are never applicable in the fact and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this appeal and hence, it is dismissed. However, no order as to costs.