JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner before this Court is a candidate, who participated in a selection process for the post of Revenue Sub-Inspector (“Patwari”) for District Tehri Garhwal. The participation of the petitioner in the said selection process was as a General Woman candidate. The total number of vacancies for Patwaries were 14, and the breakup of which is as follows:- Sl. No. Category No of post 1. OBC 9 2. General 4 3 SC 1 2. Apart from the vertical reservation, on the basis of which the posts were advertised and breakup was given, there was 30 percent horizontal reservation for women. Consequently, out of the 9 posts of Other Backward Class (in short ‘OBC’) three posts were to be filled by women and out of 4 posts for General candidates, one was to be filled by woman candidate. The entire selection was on the basis of written examination. The list of 14 selected candidates which is annexure No. 5 to the writ petition, is as under:- Sl. No. Roll No. Name of the Candidate Father's Name Date of Birth Class Gender Obtained marks 1 16011126 Narender Singh Rana Saukar Singh Rana 21.08.1988 Gen Male 163.5 2 16011098 Kuldeep Singh Kumain Trepan Singh Kumain 15.10.1985 OBC/Gen Male 156 3 16011083 Dipendra Singh Bhad Singh 05.10.1991 ST/Gen Male 155.5 4 16011118 Mohd. Imran Wahid Hasan 27.08.1988 OBC Male 153 5 16011168 Rakesh Prasad Semwal Parasram Semwal 14.08.1987 OBC Male 147.76 6 16011071 Gurpreet Kaur Balwant Singh 14.10.1989 OBC/Gen Female 139.75 7 16011218 Sunil Singh Tomar Tulsi Singh Tomar 08.04.1987 ST Male 137.75 8 16011224 Sushil Singh Gambhir Singh 19.06.1991 OBC Male 136.25 9 16011053 Dhirendra Singh Virendeer Singh 20.09.1989 OBC Male 134.75 10 16011151 Pramod Singh Chauhan Vikram Singh Chauhan 15.02.1992 OBC Male 134.5 11 16011091 Kumari Poonam Satendra Singh 02.07.1991 OBC Female 131.25 12 16011214 Sunil Kumar Gyan Dutt 07.08.1992 OBC Male 130.5 13 16011132 Neelam Nautiyal Surendra Dutt Nautiyal 10.07.1990 OBC Female 98.75 14 16011117 Meenakshi Rishiram Uniyal 12.05.1992 OBC Female 93 3. The highest marks obtained by a candidate is 163.50, second, third and fourth have 156, 155.5 and 153, respectively. As per the above, it is clear that the last cut-off marks for the General candidate is 153 marks. Admittedly, the last selected candidate i.e. Ms. Meenakshi, who has been selected under the OBC woman quota, has scored 93 marks. The highest marks obtained by a candidate is 163.50, second, third and fourth have 156, 155.5 and 153, respectively. As per the above, it is clear that the last cut-off marks for the General candidate is 153 marks. Admittedly, the last selected candidate i.e. Ms. Meenakshi, who has been selected under the OBC woman quota, has scored 93 marks. The select list also shows that Ms. Gurpreet Kaur, who is at serial No. 6, has been selected under the OBC/General candidate with a score of 139.75 marks. This selection, the petitioner has presently challenged before this Court. 4. Admittedly the petitioner – Km. Pooja Sajwan, who is a General (Woman) candidate, has 129 marks, which is more than the last selected candidate, who has 93 marks. The claim of the petitioner is that she competed as a General woman candidate and there were four seats for General category out of which one seat was reserved for woman under the horizontal quota. Amongst the General candidates who have been selected there is no woman candidate. As a General woman candidate, petitioner has secured 129 marks, yet she has not been declared successful even though she has the highest marks amongst a General woman candidate and since there was one post reserved for woman under the horizontal quota, she claims selection. She has therefore challenged the entire selection process before this Court. 5. The case of the petitioner is that though only three posts were reserved for OBC woman, in the selection 4 OBC women have been selected. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are the two amongst the four selected women candidates under the OBC category, and the reason why they have been made parties here is that whereas respondent No. 3 - Ms. Gurpreet Kaur has been selected on the basis of a General woman candidate, respondent No. 4 is the last candidate, who has been selected under the OBC woman candidate. Respondent No. 3 – Ms. Gurpreet Kaur has evidently got higher marks, as compared to the petitioner whereas Ms. Gurpreet Kaur has got 139.75 marks, the petitioner got 129 marks. Gurpreet Kaur has been selected on the basis of a General woman candidate, respondent No. 4 is the last candidate, who has been selected under the OBC woman candidate. Respondent No. 3 – Ms. Gurpreet Kaur has evidently got higher marks, as compared to the petitioner whereas Ms. Gurpreet Kaur has got 139.75 marks, the petitioner got 129 marks. The question before this Court is whether respondent No. 3 who is an OBC candidate can be treated to be a candidate selected against the vacancy reserved for General woman category on the basis of her merit or was liable to be treated as a candidate selected on the basis of OBC woman category. In case, respondent No. 3 is treated to be a candidate selected under the General woman category then the claim of the present petitioner falls. However, in case, the petitioner is able to establish her case that respondent No. 3 was liable to be treated only under an OBC woman candidate then the fact is that whereas there are only three posts reserved for OBC women, four have been selected and to correct this anomaly one seat is liable to be given to the petitioner under the General woman category. Respondent no. 4 has admittedly scored much less marks than the present petitioner, and she is the last amongst the OBC women category. 6. In the counter affidavit the stand taken by the State Government is that respondent no. 3 was liable to be treated as a General woman candidate as amongst of woman candidate she has secured the highest marks in the woman category. The marks of women candidates are as follows: Ms. Gurpreet Kaur : 139.75 (OBC/General) Km. Poonam : 131.25 (OBC) Ms. Neelam Nautiyal : 98.75 (OBC) Ms. Meenakshi : 93.00 (OBC) 7. In case, respondent No. 3 is treated as a General woman candidate, the remaining three posts have gone to Ms. Poonam, Ms. Neelam Nautiyal and Ms. Meenakshi as OBC women candidates, who have secured the highest marks amongst OBC women candidates. 8. The State has also relied upon a Government Order dated 21.06.2002 which is regarding the reservation to be applied for women in public service. There are two important points in the said Government Order, the first is that the reservation for women is a horizontal reservation and would be made in the category to which particular women belongs. 8. The State has also relied upon a Government Order dated 21.06.2002 which is regarding the reservation to be applied for women in public service. There are two important points in the said Government Order, the first is that the reservation for women is a horizontal reservation and would be made in the category to which particular women belongs. In other words, 30 percent reservation would be given to General category women, 30 percent reservation to OBC and 30 percent to SC/ST or as the case might be. The second point in the Government Order is that in case the woman is selected in her category (i.e. General, SC, ST, OBC, etc.) by the dint of her merit then her inclusion in that category would be counted against the horizontal reservation quota. 9. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3. Although the same stand has been taken by the private respondent No. 4 in her counter affidavit wherein it has been reiterated that the candidature of respondent No. 3 was liable to be treated as a General woman category since she has admittedly got the highest marks in the women category. If respondent No. 3 is taken as a General category candidate, the post of General woman had already been filled, therefore, the petitioner has no case and for the remaining, in any case, liable to be filled from amongst OBC women candidates i.e. Ms. Poonam, Ms. Neelam Nautiyal and Ms. Meenaxi. Respondent No. 3 has not put in her appearance. 10. This contention of the respondent No. 4 as well as that of the State is totally misleading. In this case, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State and the private respondent it has become abundantly clear that respondent authority while preparing the selection list has committed a grave error! The error committed by the respondent is on the basis of wrong calculation as well as wrong application of reservation law, while preparing the select list. There has indeed been a total misconception as to the application of vertical and horizontal reservations in such matters. This aspect of reservation has been dealt with in the Constitution Bench judgment in Indra Sawhney & others Vs Union of India & others reported in 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217. There has indeed been a total misconception as to the application of vertical and horizontal reservations in such matters. This aspect of reservation has been dealt with in the Constitution Bench judgment in Indra Sawhney & others Vs Union of India & others reported in 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217. The relevant paragraph, which has explained this aspect, reads as under:- “A little clarification is in order at this juncture: 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. 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 this quota will be placed in the appropriate category; if he belongs to SC category he 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. This is how these reservations are worked out in several States and there is no reason not to continue that procedure.” 11. The manner in which the horizontal reservation has to be applied has further been explained and elaborated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta & others Vs State of U.P. & others reported in 1995 (5) SCC 173 and it was explained that horizontal reservation goes across evenly in each category. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Anil Kumar Gupta has given a definite turn which is “compartmentalized horizontal reservation” and said as under:- “We are of the opinion that in the interest of avoiding any complications and intractable problems, it would be better that in future the horizontal reservations are compartmentalised in the sense explained above. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Anil Kumar Gupta has given a definite turn which is “compartmentalized horizontal reservation” and said as under:- “We are of the opinion that in the interest of avoiding any complications and intractable problems, it would be better that in future the horizontal reservations are compartmentalised in the sense explained above. In other words, the notification inviting applications should itself state not only the percentage of horizontal reservation(s) but should also specify the number of seats reserved for them in each of the social reservation categories, viz., ST, SC, OBC and OC. If this is not done there is always a possibility of one or the other vertical reservation category suffering prejudice as has happened in this case. As pointed out hereinabove, 110 seats out of 112 seats meant for special reservations have been taken away from the OC category alone - and none from the OBC or for that matter, from SC or ST. It can well happen the other way also in a given year.” 12. This aspect has further been elaborated and explained in the said judgment which reads as under:- “The proper and correct course is to first fill up the OC quota (50%) on the basis of merit; then fill up each of the social reservation quotas, i.e., SC, ST and B.C; the third step would be to find out how many candidates belonging to special reservations have been selected on the above basis. If the quota fixed for horizontal reservations is already satisfied - in case it is an overall horizontal reservation - no further question arises. But if it is not so satisfied, the requisite number of special reservation candidates shall have to be taken and adjusted/accommodated against their respective social reservation categories by deleting the corresponding number of candidates therefrom. (If, however, it is a case of compartmentalised horizontal reservation, then the process of verification and adjustment/accommodation as stated above should be applied separately to each of the vertical reservations. In such a case, the reservation of fifteen percent in favour of special categories, overall, may be satisfied or may not be satisfied.” 13. (If, however, it is a case of compartmentalised horizontal reservation, then the process of verification and adjustment/accommodation as stated above should be applied separately to each of the vertical reservations. In such a case, the reservation of fifteen percent in favour of special categories, overall, may be satisfied or may not be satisfied.” 13. In the later case, which came before Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission & others reported in 2007 (8) SCC 785 while relying upon the judgment of Anil Kumar Gupta (supra) in the application of horizontal reservation and vertical reservation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further elaborated this aspect which would also be relevant for our purpose and stated in the following paragraphs of the said judgment:- “8. We may also refer to two related aspects before considering the facts of this case. The first is about the description of horizontal reservation. For example, if there are 200 vacancies and 15% is the vertical reservation for SC and 30% is the horizontal reservation for women, the proper description of the number of posts reserved for SC, should be: "For SC: 30 posts, of which 9 posts are for women". We find that many a time this is wrongly described thus: "For SC: 21 posts for men and 9 posts for women, in all 30 posts". Obviously, there is, and there can be, no reservation category of 'male' or 'men'. 9. The second relates to the difference between the nature of vertical reservation and horizontal reservation. Social reservations in favour of SC, ST and OBC under Article 16(4) are 'vertical reservations'. Special reservations in favour of physically handicapped, women etc., under Articles 16(1) or 15(3) are “horizontal reservations”. Where a vertical reservation is made in favour of a Backward Class under Article 16(4)), the candidates belonging to such Backward Class, may compete for non-reserved posts and if they are appointed to the non-reserved posts on their own merit, their number will not be counted against the quota reserved for the respective Backward Class. Therefore, if the number of SC candidates, who by their own merit, get selected to open competition vacancies, equals or even exceeds the percentage of posts reserved for SC candidates, it cannot be said that the reservation quota for SCs has been filled. Therefore, if the number of SC candidates, who by their own merit, get selected to open competition vacancies, equals or even exceeds the percentage of posts reserved for SC candidates, it cannot be said that the reservation quota for SCs has been filled. The entire reservation quota will be intact and available in addition to those selected under open competition category. [(Vide Indra Sawhney V Union of India & others ( 1995 (5) SCC 173 ), R. K. Sabharwal vs. State of Punjab ( 1995 (2) SCC 745 ), Union of India Vs Virpal Singh Chauvan ( 1995 (6) SCC 684 and Ritesh R. Sah vs. Dr. Y Yamul ( 1996 (3) SCC 253 )]. But the aforesaid principle applicable to vertical (social) reservations will not apply to horizontal (special) reservations. Where a special reservation for women is provided within the social reservation for Scheduled Castes, the proper procedure is first to fill up the quota for scheduled castes in order of merit and then find out the number of candidates among them who belong to the special reservation group of “Scheduled Castes women”. If the number of women in such list is equal to or more than the number of special reservation quota, then there is no need for further selection towards the special reservation quota. Only if there is any shortfall, the requisite number of Scheduled Caste women shall have to be taken by deleting the corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of the list relating to Scheduled Castes. To this extent, horizontal (special) reservation differs from vertical (social) reservation. Thus women selected on merit within the vertical reservation quota will be counted against the horizontal reservation for women.” 14. The sum and substance of the above elaboration on the law would be that while making selection of candidates in public offices the first method is to prepare the list of 50 percent of the open category candidates, strictly in accordance with merit, where each candidate, irrespective of the category to which it belongs should be judged on the basis of merit for the open category seats. After finishing this exercise the next step would be to prepare the list of each category on the basis of merit i.e. separate list for SC on the basis of merit and the similar list in the same way for OBC and ST categories. This would complete the vertical reservation. After finishing this exercise the next step would be to prepare the list of each category on the basis of merit i.e. separate list for SC on the basis of merit and the similar list in the same way for OBC and ST categories. This would complete the vertical reservation. After the vertical reservation has been made, the next step would be to complete the horizontal reservation. For example 30 percent of reservation for women, this again would be in each of the category. Now for example if out of the SC category, the list already included 30 percent of women, the horizontal reservation stands complete and nothing further needs to be done. It is only if the list is short of 30 percent candidates that a candidate be included and after deleting the name of the candidate which would be a natural fall out. This is the only manner in which the list has to be prepared. 15. Once we examine this aspect, the manner which has already been explained above, we have to see whether the list prepared by the respondent on 09.09.2015 is a list, which has been correctly prepared so far as the reservation given to women is concerned. 16. The case of the State Government as well as private respondent No. 4 is that respondent No. 3 has been selected as an General category woman. This argument cannot be sustained, as it has already been stated above that under the horizontal reservation category, reservation has to be made to each category i.e. under compartmentalized horizontal reservation. 17. The last cut-off marks of the General category candidate is 155.50 marks. Admittedly, respondent No. 3 has only scored 139.75 marks. She was only selected amongst the nine OBC candidates on the basis of her merit in the OBC category. Once respondent No. 3 is treated to be amongst the OBC category candidate, her seat would be counted from amongst the three seats, which was reserved for OBC woman horizontal reservation. It is true that as an OBC candidate respondent No. 3 has highest marks, therefore, among the OBC women candidate she would be at the top followed by Km. Poonam and Ms. Neelam Nautiyal. The inclusion of respondent No. 4 – Ms. Meenakshi is wrong. 18. It is true that as an OBC candidate respondent No. 3 has highest marks, therefore, among the OBC women candidate she would be at the top followed by Km. Poonam and Ms. Neelam Nautiyal. The inclusion of respondent No. 4 – Ms. Meenakshi is wrong. 18. There is another aspect to this matter, which is that admittedly the petitioner has got the highest marks among the General women candidates. Admittedly there is one post reserved for General woman candidate under the horizontal quota. Therefore, one post has to be given to General woman candidate under the horizontal reservation quota. If this seat is taken away from General woman candidate and given to OBC candidate, this would defeat the policy of horizontal reservations. 19. The writ petition is therefore allowed. The petitioner will be treated to be a selected candidate as a General woman in the select list. Her name shall be included and the name of respondent No. 4 shall stand deleted from the select list. The select list dated 09.09.2015 shall be amended and new select list be prepared on the basis of the findings recorded above, and all consequential orders be followed forthwith.