ORDER : 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the Final Merit List issued pursuant to the Advertisement No. 01/2015, to the extent it relates to the post of Tailor specially because the said merit list has been prepared completely ignoring Clause-7 of the said advertisement, which clearly provided that 'female candidate shall be appointed first and in absence thereof only a male candidate can be appointed.' Further prayer has been made to consider the claim of the petitioner and to appoint her to the post of tailor as the petitioner is a female candidate and has duly qualified in all the events i.e. physical as well as skill test. 2. The short facts in narrow compass is that in view of an advertisement No. 01/2015 floated by the respondents for appointment to the several posts including the post of Tailor, the petitioner, having requisite qualifications, applied for the same. In the said advertisement, it was clearly specified that there would be provisions for reservation for female and in case, the female candidate is not available then only the appointment of male candidate would be considered. It is the further case of the petitioner that petitioner along with other candidates appeared in the physical test on 19.10.2015 and was declared successful in the said physical test and roll number was allotted to her as 105. In the said successful candidates, out of 54 candidates, the petitioner was the only female candidate. Thereafter, the petitioner had duly appeared in the process of skill test and was given certain job of stitching some cloths, which was successfully and satisfactorily completed by the petitioner. It is specific case of the petitioner that as per the advertisement, the petitioner ought to have been appointed to the post of Tailor in view of Clause-7 of the aforesaid advertisement in preference to the appointment of other male candidates. Though the petitioner was declared successful in the physical test as well as skill test but to her utter surprise, respondent No. 3 was offered letter of appointment for the post of tailor by the respondents. Aggrieved by the said letter of appointment to the post of tailor of respondent No. 3, the petitioner has knock the door of this Court. 3. Aggrieved by the said letter of appointment to the post of tailor of respondent No. 3, the petitioner has knock the door of this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urges that as per the Clause-7 of the advertisement, the petitioner is entitled for appointment to the post of tailor and respondents have illegally and arbitrary, appointed the respondent No. 3 dehors the rules. It is further stated that the petitioner was declared successful in all the events i.e. physical test as well as skill test. In the advertisement itself clause-7 is very much clear that in absence of any female candidate, then only a male candidate would have been appointed by the respondents but this is glaring example of the respondents though the petitioner was available as a female candidate in spite of that respondents choose to appoint the candidate of their own choice, who was a male candidate and as such, without any notice to the petitioner and without hearing her stand, the respondents have appointed respondent No. 3 to the post of tailor, which is not permissible in the eyes of law. 4. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Chanchal Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposes the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and argues that column 7 of the advertisement literally speaks about 3 % reservation to female candidates in a flat way. The terms used in the advertisement 'Mahilayon ko 3 % kshatij aaraskhan dey hoga. Mahila Ummidwar nahi hone par purush ummidwaron ki niyukti ki jayegi', the Clause was not specifically for appointment to the post of tailor. It was in general for all posts in flat way and in case reserved quota of female candidates remains vacant because of unavailability of female candidates then only a male candidate will be appointed against the reserved quota of female. The petitioner in complete misinterpretation of the rules has approached this Court for consideration of her case for appointment though the rule is very clear. Learned counsel draws the attention of the Court towards rule at Annexure A to the counter-affidavit, which contents that whenever there is a single post, it cannot be reserved as it has to be declared as unreserved post, the reference vide notification dated 11.12.1997. Learned counsel draws the attention of the Court towards rule at Annexure A to the counter-affidavit, which contents that whenever there is a single post, it cannot be reserved as it has to be declared as unreserved post, the reference vide notification dated 11.12.1997. Learned counsel justifying the action of the respondents and submits that there is no illegality in appointment of the respondent No. 3 and the petitioner did not deserve to be appointed in terms of the advertisement and rules. 5. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for appointment of the petitioner to the post of Tailor. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not accepted by this Court on the ground that for single post, reservation policy will not be applicable. From the advertisement itself it is very much clear that 3 % horizontal reservation was to be given to the female candidates irrespective of their categories. In view of the advertisement and in view of the reservation policy, 3 % horizontal reservation to the female candidates come to 03 female candidates out of total of 97 candidates. As there was only one post for tailor, the said post could not be reserved for female candidate, even if a female candidate was available. The appointment was to be made on the basis of merit and the candidate who was given appointment to the said post, has obtained 86 marks, whereas the petitioner had obtained only 69 marks, which was very much evident from Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit itself. 6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, no interference is warranted in the instant case. There is no merit in this case. I do not find any illegality in the order of appointment of respondent No. 3. Resultantly, the writ petition merits dismissal and is hereby dismissed.