JUDGMENT : NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. 1. The respondent authorities issued an advertisement dated 26.10.2015 whereby applications were invited for the post of Forester/Vanpal at Circle/Zonewise. The vacancies for the Barmer Circle finds mentioned at S. No. 30 of the advertisement. Against the column of total posts, 07 posts were advertised for district Barmer and as per Condition No. 2.1 of the advertisement, a total of 30% posts were stated to be reserved for women. The petitioner cleared the written examination, Physical Efficiency Test as well as interview and her name finds mention at S. No. 1 in the list maintained for women category. However, one woman against the unreserved post was appointed whereas 30% of the vacancies reserved for women amounts to 1.8 posts out of the 07 posts. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the final result (Annex. 4) with a direction to include the name of the petitioner in the select list and grant appointment as per her merit in pursuance to the recruitment process initiated for district Barmer. 3. Reply has been filed by the respondents No. 1 to 4 as well as by respondent No. 5. 4. As per reply filed by learned counsel for respondent No. 5, the petitioner had submitted her application form in the category of OBC Non-Creamy Layer and since there was no reservation for OBC in the advertisement, the question of granting reservation to women candidates belonging to BC category does not arise. As per condition No. 2.1 of the advertisement, the provision with regard to the 30% Horizontal reservation of Women candidates in the advertised posts is category-wise. The reservation of women candidates shall be adjusted proportionately in the respective category to which such women candidate belongs. One candidate Lalita Dadani whose name appears at Serial No. 2 in the select list belongs to unreserved Female category and she has been accordingly selected. Thus, one post stands filled as per 30% reservation. 5. As per reply filed by the State, the candidature of the petitioner was lawfully rejected in view of Condition No. 2.1.1 of the advertisement dated 26.10.2015 and Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service Rules, 2015. Only 30% horizontal reservation was accorded to women candidates (category-wise). Thus, one post stands filled as per 30% reservation. 5. As per reply filed by the State, the candidature of the petitioner was lawfully rejected in view of Condition No. 2.1.1 of the advertisement dated 26.10.2015 and Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service Rules, 2015. Only 30% horizontal reservation was accorded to women candidates (category-wise). Total 07 seats of open category/unreserved were advertised for the post of Forester out of which 01(06x30% =1.8) seat was reserved for woman candidates (open category/unreserved) and kept rest of 06 posts for open category/unreserved. It was further argued that as per the claim of the petitioner, if 02 seats are reserved for woman candidates, then rule 10 of the rules of 2015 will be violated, meaning thereby that 30% horizontal reservation will be extended beyond 30% which would be against the law, hence the petitioner cannot be benefited beyond the rule 10 of the rules of 2015 with regard to the posts which belong to open category/unreserved. 6. For proper adjudication, it would be appropriate to reproduce Rule 10 of the Rules of 2015:- "Reservation of vacancies for women:-Reservation of vacancies for woman candidates shall be 30% categorywise, in direct recruitment out of which 8% shall be for widows and 2% for divorced women candidates. In the event of non-availability of the eligible and suitable widow and divorced women candidates in a particular year, the vacancies so reserved for widow and divorced women candidates shall be filled in by other women candidates and in the event of non-availability, the vacancies so reserved for them shall be filled up by male candidates and such vacancies shall not be carried forward to the subsequent year and the reservation shall be treated as horizontal reservation i.e. the reservation of women candidates shall be adjusted proportionately in the respective category to which the women candidates belong." 7. It is apparent from the above that the reservation for women under the 30% quota is horizontal. This Court may also note the difference between horizontal and vertical reservation made in the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., 1995(5) SCC 173 which reads thus:- "........ It is apparent from the above that the reservation for women under the 30% quota is horizontal. This Court may also note the difference between horizontal and vertical reservation made in the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., 1995(5) SCC 173 which reads thus:- "........ The proper and correct course is to first fill up the Open Competition quota (50%) on the basis of merit; then fill up each of the social reservation quotas, i.e. S.C., S.T. 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 compartmentalized 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 per cent in favour of special categories, overall, may be satisfied or may not be satisfied.) (Emphasis supplied) 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.' 7-8 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 Art. 16(4) are 'vertical reservations.' Special reservations in favour of physically handicapped, women etc., under Art. 16(1) or 15(3) are 'horizontal reservations.' Where a vertical reservation is made in favour of a backward class under Art. 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 numbers 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 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 Indira Sawhney (supra); R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab 1995 (2) SCC 745 ; Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauvan, 1995 (6) SCC 684 and Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. 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." 8. The said horizontal and vertical reservation has been further explained in the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and 2 ors. v. Ashish Kumar Pandey & 58 ors. Thus women selected on merit within the vertical reservation quota will be counted against the horizontal reservation for women." 8. The said horizontal and vertical reservation has been further explained in the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and 2 ors. v. Ashish Kumar Pandey & 58 ors. (Special Appeal No. 291 of 2016) decided on 29.07.2016 which reads:- "If 19 posts are reserved for SCs (of which the quota for women is four), 19 SC candidates shall have to be first listed in accordance with merit, from out of the successful eligible candidates. If such list of 19 candidates contains four SC women candidates, then there is no need to disturb the list by including any further SC women candidate. On the other hand, if the list of 19 SC candidates contains only two women candidates, then the next two SC woman candidates in accordance with merit, will have to be included in the list and corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of such list shall have to be deleted, so as to ensure that the final 19 selected SC candidates contain four women SC candidates. (But if the list of 19 SC candidates contains more than four women candidates, selected on own merit, all of them will continue in the list and there is no question of deleting the excess women candidate on the ground that 'SC women' have been selected in excess of the prescribed internal quota of four.)" 9. While placing reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta, the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Ashish Kumar Pandey (supra) held:- "In this case, the number of candidates to be selected under general category (open competition), were 59, out of which 11 were earmarked for women. When the first 59 from among the 261 successful candidates were taken and listed as per merit, it contained 11 women candidates, which was equal to the quota for 'General Category - Women.' There was thus no need for any further selection of woman candidates under the special reservation for women. But what RPSC did was to take only the first 48 candidates in the order of merit (which contained 11 women) and thereafter, fill the next 11 posts under the general category with woman candidates. But what RPSC did was to take only the first 48 candidates in the order of merit (which contained 11 women) and thereafter, fill the next 11 posts under the general category with woman candidates. As a result, we find that among 59 general category candidates in all 22 women have been selected consisting of eleven women candidates selected on their own merit (candidates at Sl. Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 19, 21, 25, 31, 35 and 41 of the Selection List) and another eleven (candidates at Sl. No. 54, 61, 62, 63, 66, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79 and 80 of the Selection List) included under reservation quota for 'General Category Women.' This is clearly impermissible. The process of selections made by RPSC amounts to treating the 20% reservation for women as a vertical reservation, instead of being a horizontal reservation within the vertical reservation. " 10. In the present case, there were total 07 posts of Forester/Vanpal. Only 01 post has been earmarked for women as per 30% quota. One candidate of General category women who came in the merit and was at S. No. 1 has been selected. This Court could have found no fault with the said selection which appears to have been no doubt done in accordance with the horizontal reservation, in case, number of women candidates required to be selected came to be only 01 (one) as per its 30% reservation out of 07 posts. It is the own case of the respondents that as per 30% quota, horizontal reservation accorded to women candidates (categorywise), the calculation is:- "01(06 x 30% = 1.8)" 11. Thus, the only question that remains is whether reserved post of women category being 1.8 should be rounded off or not. 12. The said question has been answered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. & Anr. v. Pawan Kumar Tiwari & Ors. (Appeal (civil) No. 4079 of 2004 decided on 4.1.2005 wherein it is categorically held that 50 and above be rounded off to 1 and 49 and less should be rounded off to 0. In the said case, the respondent was denied appointment as the number of seats stood reduced because the department refused to read 46.50 as 47. The High Court allowed the petition. Aggrieved, the State of U.P. filed SLP against the order of High Court. In the said case, the respondent was denied appointment as the number of seats stood reduced because the department refused to read 46.50 as 47. The High Court allowed the petition. Aggrieved, the State of U.P. filed SLP against the order of High Court. While dismissing the appeal, the Apex Court held as under:- "The High Court has found mainly two faults with the process adopted by the State Government. First, the figure of 46.50 should have been rounded off to 47 and not to 46; and secondly, in the category of freedom fighters and ex- servicemen, total 3 posts have been earmarked as horizontally reserved by inserting such reservation into general quota of 46 posts which had the effect of pushing out of selection zone three candidates from merit list of general category. We do not find fault with any of the two reasonings adopted by the High Court. The rule of rounding off based on logic and common sense is: if part is one-half or more, its value shall be increased to one and if part is less than half then its value shall be ignored. 46.50 should have been rounded off to 47 and not to 46 as has been done. If 47 candidates would have been considered for selection in general category, the respondent was sure to find a place in the list of selected meritorious candidates and hence entitled to appointment. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that if this principle of rounding off is to be applied then the percentage of reservation in scheduled tribe category would come to 2 by rounding off 1.86, to the nearest higher value, and in that case a candidate from scheduled tribe category and not the respondent would be entitled to appointment. We cannot agree. No candidate in scheduled tribe category has chosen to lay challenge to the selection. We are also not aware if there is any scheduled tribe category candidate available and qualified for appointment consequent upon his having participated in the process of selection. This plea of the appellants is without any foundation and hence does not deserve to be taken note of." 13. Applying the test in the present case, the reservation for women being 1.8 as per 30% quota should have been rounded off to 02. Thus, 02 posts should have been given to women candidates. This plea of the appellants is without any foundation and hence does not deserve to be taken note of." 13. Applying the test in the present case, the reservation for women being 1.8 as per 30% quota should have been rounded off to 02. Thus, 02 posts should have been given to women candidates. One woman having already been selected as per merit, the second reserved post should have been filled from next available woman from any other category as per the merit in the said category as per the settled proposition in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta (supra) and State of U.P. v. Ashish Kumar Pandey (supra). Thus, if out of total 07 candidates, two arranged to be scheduled and only one woman could be selected, then the next woman from the next category in accordance with merit should have been selected and will have to be included in the list and the corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of the such list has to be deleted. 14. In the present case, the next available woman candidate as per select list from the next category is petitioner. 15. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant appointment to the petitioner forthwith against the one post which was kept reserved by the interim order passed on 20.04.2016.