ORDER : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following reliefs :- "(a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the action of the respondents while not considering candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of ANM on account of changing the criteria of preparation of select list vide condition No. (i) of the order dated 03.10.2017 and while not adopting the relevant reservation policy is per se illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to the object of recruitment process and so also violative to Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the same be quashed and set aside. (b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to consider candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of ANM and if petitioner comes in merit she be offered appointment. (c) the respondents may kindly be directed to fill the total posts of SC category. (d) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (e) Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs." 2. On the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court passed order on 13.12.2017, which reads as follows : "Learned counsel for the respondent is directed to give statement on two counts :- Firstly, as to how the reservation has been made applicable in the district-wise merit. Secondary, whether the merit list was operated till the last meritorious candidate is taken in their respective category and there is any minimum bench mark which the candidate is supposed to qualify." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner firstly states that inspite of order of this Court reservation has not been made applicable and secondly the criteria of percentile is not in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that prescribing any minimum percentile formula at this stage will be prejudice their case. 4. Counsel for the respondent has made a categoric submission that the reservation has been made applicable in accordance with law as per reservation roster of the State of Rajasthan for vertical and horizontal posts. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that prescribing any minimum percentile formula at this stage will be prejudice their case. 4. Counsel for the respondent has made a categoric submission that the reservation has been made applicable in accordance with law as per reservation roster of the State of Rajasthan for vertical and horizontal posts. Counsel for the respondent has further shown percentile formula of 36%, which is in process in compliance of the judgment of this Court (Jaipur Bench) Priyanka Saini v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1766/2017, decided on 01.5.2017). Counsel for the respondent has further shown percentile formula of 36%, which is in process in compliance of the judgment of this Court (Jaipur Bench) Priyanka Saini v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1766/2017, decided on 01.5.2017). Counsel for the respondent has shown proposition to have answer on a written note as follows : fcUnq la[;k 01 ds laca/k esa ,,u,l lafonk HkrhZ&2016 foKfIr la[;k 2038 fnuakd 28-01-2016 ds vUrxZr lafonk ,,u,e in ij ftysokj esfjV vuqlkj vkj{k.k jksLvj jkT; ljdkj ds orZeku esa izpfyr vkj{k.k izko/kkuksa yEcor (Vertical) rFkk {kSfrt (Horizontal) ykxw fd;s tkdj vH;fFkZ;ksa dk ftysokj&oxZokj p;u fd;k x;k gSA vkj{k.k izko/kku vuqlkj ftysokj&oxZokj vH;fFkZ;ksa dk p;u fd;s tkus ds mijkUr ;fn fdlh ftys esa fdlh vkjf{kr oxZ ds vH;fFkZ;ksa dh vuqiyC/krk ds pyrs in fjDr jgs gS] rks ,slh fLFkfr esa fjDr jgs inksa dks vxzsf"kr djus ds LFkku ij dkfeZd d&2 foHkkx] jktLFkku ljdkj t;iqj ds i= dzekad i0 2¼5½ dkfeZd@d&2@15 fnuakd 12-10-2015 esa iznRr funsZ'kkuqlkj esfjV vuqlkj ftysa esa miyC/k vU; lkekU; ik= vH;fFkZ;ksa ls Hkjk x;k gSA dkfeZd foHkkx ds i= fnuakd 12-10-2015 dh Nk;k izfr layXu ifjf'k"V&01 fcUnq la[;k 02 ds laca/k esa ,,u,e lafonk HkrhZ 2016 gsrq ek0 mPp U;k;ky;] t;iqj }kjk ,l0ch0 flfoy fjV ihfV'ku la[;k 1766@2017 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnuakd 01-05-2017 esa fn;s x;s funsZ'kksa dh vuqikyu esa lafonk ,,u,e HkrhZ&2016 ds vUrxZr vH;fFkZ;ksa ds p;u ds fy, HkrhZ QkeZwyk r; fd;k x;k gS] ftldk l{ke Lrj ij vuqeksnu djok;k tkdj lafonk ,,u,e inksa ij ftysokj&oxZokj vH;fFkZ;ksa dk p;u fd;k x;k gSA ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnuakd 01-05-2017 dh vuqikyuk esa foHkkxh; Lrj ij r; fd;s x;s HkrhZ QkeZwysa ds fcUnq la[;k IV esa vafdr vuqlkj ^^ijh{kk mRrh.kZ dj ysus ,ao esfjV es ;Fks"V LFkku izkIr dj ysus ds mijkUr Hkh ijh{kkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr gsrq ik=rk dk fu.kZ; foHkkx ds v/;k/khu jgsxkA vr% vk;ksftr ijh{kk ds ifj.kke ds rgr 36 ijlsUVkbZy ;k mlls vf/kd ijlsUVkbZy dks gh mRrh.kZ ekurs gq, ofj;rk lwph esa 'kkfey fd;k tkuk gSA r; fd;s x;s HkrhZ QkeZwys ds laca/k esa dh xbZ dk;Zokgh ls lacaf/kr uksV'khV dh Nk;k izfr layXu ifjf'k"V&02 izR;sd ftys ds vkj{k.k jksLVj vuqlkj oxZokj miyC/k inksa ij ftysokj&oxZokj miyC/k vH;fFkZ;ksa esa ls 36 ijlsUVkbZy rd vad izkIr djus okys vH;fFkZ;ksa dks oxZokj miyC/k inksa ij p;fur fd;k x;k gSA** which has been stated to be made by the concerned respondent authority on 15.12.2017. 5. 5. This Court is of the opinion that the response given by the respondents is satisfactory as they have implemented roster strictly in accordance with law and had given necessary reservation in the district-wise appointment made. It is also satisfactory to note that minimum 35% percentile formula has been adopted by the respondents as per the precedent law of Priyanka Saini (supra). 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to percentile formula the persons not securing minimum qualified marks would result into serious prejudice to the SC & ST candidates. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, states that no prejudice shall be caused as there are limited seats to be appointed on contractual basis only. 7. In light of the aforesaid observation the writ petition does not call for any interference, hence, dismissed.