JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the select list (Annex.4) issued by the respondents pertaining to the post of Safai Karamchari. 2. It is inter alia indicated in the writ petition that the selections were held under the Rajasthan Municipalities (Safai Employee Service) Rules, 2012 (the Rules, 2012); the applications were invited vide advertisement dated 13/4/2018, the petitioner applied in general category and submitted the required affidavit and documents. The list of selected candidates in general category was issued in which total 826 candidates were selected. 3. It is submitted that from the select list, it is apparent that the posts which were earmarked for the general category have been filled from the candidates other than the general category, more particularly from the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste. It is contended that the respondents have committed illegality and irregularity in the selection process while filling up the posts meant for general category inasmuch as out of 826 selected candidates only 29 candidates belonging to the general category were selected and, therefore, the select list deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that when the advertisement Annex.1 made provisions for reservation in accordance with the Rules, 2012 and 826 posts were meant for the general/male candidates, the respondents could not have accorded appointment to the candidates other than the general category i.e. to the candidates belonging to Schedule Caste. Further submissions have been made that the selection procedure provides for drawing of lottery and, therefore, lottery could only be drawn from among the general category candidates and not from the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and, therefore, the selection process adopted in this regard deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 6. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner have no substance and the same deserve to be rejected. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 6. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner have no substance and the same deserve to be rejected. Admittedly, 826 posts were meant for general/male candidates, the said posts essentially were unreserved and on unreserved posts, eligible candidates belonging to all the categories including Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, OBC are entitled to be considered and, therefore, even if lottery is to be drawn for the post of general/male candidates, the respondents were justified in including all the eligible candidates belonging to reserved category as well. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bihari Lal Rada vs. Anil Jain Tinu, (2009) 4 SCC 1 ), while considering the meaning and purport of the term General Category in the context of election to the office of President of the Municipality inter alia observed as under: There is no separate category like general category. The expression belonging to the general category wherever employed means the seats or offices earmarked for persons belonging to all categories irrespective of their caste, class or community or tribe. The unreserved seats euphemistically described as general category seats are open seats available for all candidates who are otherwise qualified to contest to that office. 8. In view of the above settled legal position, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.