JUDGMENT : N.V. Anjaria, J. 1. As these three petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution involved similar facts and identical issues, they were heard together to be treated for final disposal by this common judgment. 1.1. Heard learned senior advocate Mr. Gautam Joshi with learned advocate Mr. Vyom Shah for the petitioners, learned Advocate General Mr. Kamal Trivedi with learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Krina Calla for respondent No. 1-State, learned advocate Mr. Shivang Shukla for respondent No. 2-Gujarat Public Service Commission and learned senior advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta assisted by learned advocate Ms. Vidhi Bhatt for respondent No. 3, at length. 2. The petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 18654 of 2018 has prayed to set aside the action on part of the respondent No. 2 Gujarat Public Service Commission in including the name of respondent No. 3 in general category and excluding the name of the petitioner by showing him to be unsuccessful. By terming such action as contrary to Government Resolution dated 01st August, 2018, the petitioner has further prayed to direct the respondent Commission to include the name of the petitioner in the list of successful candidates and remit the same to the respondent State Government for the purpose of appointment to the post of Police Inspector, Unarmed, on the same date on which other Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC) Male candidates were appointed and to grant with all consequential benefits. 2.1. In the similar way, three petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 18968 of 2018 have prayed to set aside the action of the respondent No. 2 Commission in including the name of respondent Nos. 3 to 8 in their respective category and excluding the name of the petitioners by showing them to be unsuccessful. Further direction as prayed for in the first petition above are also prayed for. The prayer in the third petition filed by the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 12292 of 2018, on same lines to set aside the action of the respondent No. 2 Commission in including the name of respondent No. 3 in her category and excluding the name of the petitioner by showing her to be unsuccessful. Same further directions are prayed for by this petitioner as well to include his name for appointment to the post etc. 3. Same further directions are prayed for by this petitioner as well to include his name for appointment to the post etc. 3. All the petitioners applied for the post of Police Inspector, Unarmed, advertised by the respondent-Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC) on 15th July, 2017. The recruitment process consisted of preliminary examination in which the physical capacity was tested, the main written examination followed by oral interview. The petitioners appeared in all the three stages and cleared them. Total 115 posts were advertised, out of which 38 posts were reserved for female candidates under being 33% for women's category. After the oral interview, respondent GPSC published list of successful and unsuccessful candidates. 3.1. The case of the petitioner of the first mentioned petition who was a male candidate in SEBC category, is inter alia that the cut-off marks in SEBC category were 368.15, resultantly, this petitioner figured at Serial No. 85 in the list of unsuccessful candidate since he has secured 366 marks. In the category of SEBC Male, the petitioner would rank second in the list of unsuccessful candidates. It was stated that the cut-off marks for SEBC Female were fixed at 335. 3.1.1. Out of 30 seats available for SEBC Category, 10 were reserved for SEBC Female candidates. In the final result, four females belonging to SEBC class were shown as General Female candidates who were selected on their own merits. They were (i) Kumari Hina Kiritbhai Humbal (GF 14) at Serial No. 71, (ii) Kumari Himalben Ghemarbhai Rabari (GF 16) at Serial No. 78, (iii) Kumar Jinal Ghemarbhai Desai (GF 19) at Serial No. 82 and (iv) Kumari Shilpaben Mahadevbhai Desai (GF 20) at Serial No. 83. Now, in the category of SEBC Female excluding the above four females selected on her own merits, further ten female candidates were included who were listed at Serial Nos. 84, 86, 88, 91, 92, 96, 98, 99, 100 and 101. 3.1.2. Now, in the category of SEBC Female excluding the above four females selected on her own merits, further ten female candidates were included who were listed at Serial Nos. 84, 86, 88, 91, 92, 96, 98, 99, 100 and 101. 3.1.2. Relying on Resolution dated 01st August, 2018 of the General Administration Department of the State Government which deals with the policy of applying the manner of women's reservation in the government services and the clarifications with regard to the policy in that regard, it is the case of the petitioner that as per Clause 12 of the Resolution, if any female candidate belonging to any reserved category is selected on her own merits, she would be treated as general category candidate for the purpose of roster, that is vertical, but would be treated as female representatives of that particular category by applying the horizontal or representative reservation in the register of women's reservation. Contending that the said Resolution represents the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission [ (2007) 8 SCC 785 ] for implementation of women's reservation which is horizontal reservation, it is the case that inclusion of 10 female candidates as per above serial numbers in the category of SEBC Female was wrong. 3.1.3. In paragraph 3.2 of the petition, this petitioner made the following submission, quoting to be precise, "3.2 … … … all the SEBC Female candidates detailed in paragraph 2.4 are required to be treated as Female representatives in SEBC category for the purpose of female representation and to that extent last four female SEBC candidates namely the candidates shown at Sr. no. 98, 99, 100 and 101 are wrongly shown to have been selected. To that extent, the representation of SEBC male is wrongly reduced. Taking into consideration petitioner's merit i.e. 366, he is required to be included in the list of selected candidates, as he is the third meritorious candidate in the list of unsuccessful SEBC candidates, the first being 34 (368), second being 58 (366) and the third being the petitioner (366)." 3.2. Taking into consideration petitioner's merit i.e. 366, he is required to be included in the list of selected candidates, as he is the third meritorious candidate in the list of unsuccessful SEBC candidates, the first being 34 (368), second being 58 (366) and the third being the petitioner (366)." 3.2. The case of the petitioners in second petition who belonged to the General Category is that the cut-off marks for General Female category were 363, as a result of which name of petitioners were shown at unsuccessful candidates at the respective serial numbers, the petitioners having 354, 348 and 346.50 marks respectively. In the category of General Female, they would rank 2nd, 6th and 7th in that order. Out of 66 available seats for the general category, 20 seats were reserved by way of 33% reservation for General Female candidates. 3.2.1. It was stated that in the final result, following females of SEBC category were shown as General Female who were selected on their own merits. They were mentioned to be (i) Kumar Ansuya Laxmanbhai Varchand at Serial No. 43, (ii) Kumari Priyankaben Ramjibhai Chaudhari (GF 08) at Serial No. 46, (iii) Kumari Hina Kiritbhai Humbal (GF 14) at Serial No. 71, (iv) Kumar Himalben Ghemarbhai Rabari (GF 16) at Serial No. 78, (v) Kumar Jinal Ghemarbhai Desai (GF 19) at Serial No. 82 and (vi) Kumar Shilpaben Mahadevbhai Desai (GF 20) at Searial No. 83. It was next stated that total 13 female candidates found their places as females of General Category because respondent-GPSC treated six females belonging to SEBC Category who were otherwise selected on their own merits as female representatives of General Category. Thus, seven female candidates were excluded from the list. 3.2.2. In paragraph 2.5 of the petition, the following submissions were raised, extracting to be precise. "2.5 … … … so far as the selection of female candidates on their own merits are concerned, there are six female candidates belonging to SEBC category are selected on their own merits, who should be treated as female representatives of that category. Same way, one female candidate, namely, Miss Anjali Sondarva, appearing at merit no. 17 is treated as representative of general female category. There are 2 other female candidates of SC who are selected on their own merits in that category. Same way, one female candidate, namely, Miss Anjali Sondarva, appearing at merit no. 17 is treated as representative of general female category. There are 2 other female candidates of SC who are selected on their own merits in that category. Therefore, the 1st candidate at serial number 1 has to be treated as a female representative of SC category." 3.2.3. It was further averred, "2.5 … … … on the female candidates belonging to SEBC being considered as representative female of SEBC category, 6 such females belonging to that category are wrongly included in the select list as female representatives of that category. Likewise, the female candidate at merit position no. 17 is also treated as female representative of general category. On their being excluded as the female representative of that category, two consequences would follow, namely, 6 meritorious candidates, male or female, in the category of SEBC would be getting there placement in the select list. Simultaneously, the shortfall of 33% would have to be made good by selection/placement of female representatives of general category. To that extent, those male candidates of general category would help to make way for female representatives of general category. Further, one female general category would also have to be included in addition to 6 female candidates making a total of 7 comprising of 6 compensating for the females treated as female representative of SEBC category and one compensating for female representative treated as that of SC category." 3.2.4. These petitioners too contend on the basis of above facts and the submissions that principles of horizontal reservation as applied for the category of women has been wrongly applied and the correct course is not followed. 3.3. The petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 12292 of 2018 was the applicant in General Female Category who stated that cut-off marks for the General Female Category being 363 and she having secured 361.5 marks, she was listed as unsuccessful candidate No. 20 and ranked first in the list of unsuccessful candidates in the General Female. Case of this petitioner is on the same lines having pleaded similar facts as the case of petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 18968 of 2018 is concerned who was also a General Female candidate. In this view, the facts and contentions are not repeated. 4. The petitions were contested by respondent-GPSC by filing affidavit-in-reply. Case of this petitioner is on the same lines having pleaded similar facts as the case of petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 18968 of 2018 is concerned who was also a General Female candidate. In this view, the facts and contentions are not repeated. 4. The petitions were contested by respondent-GPSC by filing affidavit-in-reply. Respondent-State Government also filed affidavit-in-reply in response to the case of the petitioners. Replies were filed only in the first captioned petition. It was stated on behalf of the respondents that their reply were common to all the petitions. 4.1. With regard to the principles to be followed for providing representation to the women's reservation category and in respect of the manner of operation of Resolution dated 01st August, 2018, the stance of the GPSC was evinced in paragraph 11 in particular of the affidavit-in-reply dated 19th January, 2019. "11 … … … As per the existing reservation policy of the State Government, 33% of the posts out of total posts advertised are required to be filled up by respective female candidates. The procedure provides compliance to fill up the posts as per the advertised vacancies for the respective categories. It also fills up the posts respectively reserved for women in each category and by making relaxation in qualifying standard (cut off marks) fixed for common (male) category of respective caste within the range of 10% only following the provision of the examination recruitment rules." 4.1.1. In the following contentions raised on oath by the deponent Deputy Secretary of the GPSC, a stand of conflict with the State Government was projected, stating that clarifications shown in the Resolution dated 01st August, 2018 did not have any authority to support. "11 … … … The petitioner has relied upon and particularly emphasized on the Government Resolution General Administration Department (in vernacular language) No. CRR/1096/2213/G. 2 dated 01st August, 2018 (a copy of which is attached with the memo of petition) issued with a view to provide certain clarifications on the various issues concerning selection of candidates of different categories including women candidates as per reservation policy of the State Government. The said GR is in questioner format. However, it may be stated that it does not address the issues aim at suitably, resultantly it defeats the very purpose of smooth implementation of reservation policy. The said GR is in questioner format. However, it may be stated that it does not address the issues aim at suitably, resultantly it defeats the very purpose of smooth implementation of reservation policy. The petitioner has drawn attention towards item No. 12 of the said clarification and accordingly he has prayed for inclusion him in the merit list. In this context, I say and submit that the said clarification is not in consonance with the reservation policy in vogue and the same is not crystal clear. It is pertinent to note that the views expressed in said clarification are not supported by any authoritative orders." 4.2. the State Government filed its affidavit dated 10th April, 2019 to submit in nutshell that the principles indicated and clarifications given out in the Resolution dated 01st August, 2018 for the purpose of applying women's reservation were in accordance with the Rules called Gujarat Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women)(Amendment) Rules, 2012 as also in compliance of the mandate the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra). 4.3. At this stage, it may be mentioned that though respondent-GPSC attempted to lock horns with the State Government in the first affidavit-in-reply filed by it as above, in the additional affidavit-in-reply dated 31st July, 2017 filed by another Deputy Secretary, a conciliatory tone was expressed to state that the matter was discussed with the General Administration Department in the series of meetings. It was stated that the principles stated by the Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra) were incorporated in Resolution dated 01st August, 2018. The GPSC stated that reservation policy was the domain of State Government and it had decided to follow the Resolution as interpreted by the State Government which was as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court. It was also stated that the Commission decided to follow the method indicated in the Resolution to avoid the stalemate and to ensure that the recruitment process was not held up. 4.4. It was dismal to witness a statutory body like Gujarat Public Service Commission taking a conflicting stand in itself, and reprobating. Such an uncertain stand by statutory body before the court of law must be eschewed at all costs and in all circumstances. A clarity of stand is always a virtue. 4.4. It was dismal to witness a statutory body like Gujarat Public Service Commission taking a conflicting stand in itself, and reprobating. Such an uncertain stand by statutory body before the court of law must be eschewed at all costs and in all circumstances. A clarity of stand is always a virtue. For a statutory body like GPSC or any other government or semi-government body, taking a clear stand in court of law is imperative. 5. From the facts pleaded by the petitioners and the rival stand and the contentions raised by the parties in that regard, the question posed for consideration is whether the principles of reservation for reserved category of women for which the horizontal concept of the reservation is to be applied, are properly acted upon in consonance with the true concept, import and purpose of the horizontal reservation and as per the principles laid down on that score by the Apex Court. 5.1. Statutory rules called the Gujarat Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 1997 have been framed. Rule 2 in its relevant part reads as under. "2. Reservation of Posts for Women:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any rules or orders relating to recruitment to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State- (a) There shall be reserved in favour of women belonging to the Scheduled Castes thirty percent of the posts reserved in favour of such Castes; (b) There shall be reserved in favour of women belonging to the Scheduled Tribes thirty percent of the posts reserved in favour of such Tribes; (c) There shall be reserved in favour of women belonging to the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes thirty percent of the posts reserved in favour of such Classes;and (d) there shall be reserved in favour of women thirty percent of the posts not being posts reserved in favour of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes." 5.1.1. Thus, in each category, women reservation is provided. Furthermore, Clause (d) of Rule 2 which is relevant, provides that there shall be reserved in favour of women the posts "not being posts reserved in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes". 30% reservation mentioned in the Rule in this category came to be revised to 33% subsequently. Furthermore, Clause (d) of Rule 2 which is relevant, provides that there shall be reserved in favour of women the posts "not being posts reserved in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes". 30% reservation mentioned in the Rule in this category came to be revised to 33% subsequently. It could be seen from language of Clause (d) of Rule 2 that percentage of women reservation refers to those posts to be reserved for women which are not the posts otherwise reserved in the reserved category. In other words, they are the posts independently reserved for women in each category or compartment. 5.2. The aforesaid Rules of 1997 came to be amended by the Rules called Gujarat Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women)(Amendment) Rules, 2012 making the manner of providing reservation more assertive, explicit and clearer. Rule 3 which was added by the amendment, reads as under. "3. Manner of applying reservation of posts for women (1) The reservation of posts for women shall be horizontal and compartmentalized and women selected on merit within the vertical reservation quota in any category mentioned in clause (a) to (d) of rule 2 shall be counted against the horizontal reservation for women within that category. Explanation (i) Horizontal and compartmentalized reservation means respective quota of posts reserved in favour of women under clause (3) of article 15 of the Constitution of India made in public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the state that interlocks with the vertical reservation. (ii) Vertical reservation means reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes under clause (4) of article 16 of the Constitution of India. (2) The reservation of posts for women mentioned in rule 2 shall be applied- (i) by first filling up the quota of the categories mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of rule 2 in order of merit; and then (ii) finding out the number of candidates among them who belong to the respective reservation category and if the number of candidates in such lists is equal to or more than the number of special reservation quota of women, then it shall not be necessary for further selection towards the reservation quota of women. Only if there is any shortfall of the women candidates in any such category, the requisite number of women belonging to such category shall have to be taken by deleting the corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of the list relating to such category." 5.2.1 The Explanation to Rule 3(1) explains as to what is horizontal and compartmentalized reservation under Article 15(3) vis-a-vis the vertical reservation in terms of Article 16(4) of the Constitution. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 says how to apply the reservation in the posts for women. It mentions that first the categories in Clauses (a) to (d) of Rule 2 quota shall be filled in. if the number of seats equal to special reservation quota, that is women category is filled up, then there would not be any necessity to further select the person to be placed in the reservation quota. If there is a shortfall of women candidates in such category, the required number of women belonging to "such category" shall have to be taken by deleting the corresponding number of the candidates from the bottom of the list in that very category. 5.3. Resolution dated 01st August, 2018 issued by the General Administration Department deals with the subject of providing women's category reservation in the government service. In the Resolution, it was stated that 30% reservation provided for women category by Notification dated 09th April, 1997 the said quota was increased to 33% as per Notification dated 11th November, 2014. The Resolution clarifies certain aspect as to how the reservation in the women category for 33% quota should be operated. Clause 12 and Clause 13 are relevant to the controversy raised in the petition. It clarifies the situation when a woman belonging to SC, ST or SEBC category stands in General Category merits on her own reckoning. The clarification given in the Resolution sets out the mode of providing for the special reservation in the women quota. 5.4. Reverting to recollect the basic facts, 115 posts of Police Inspector, Unarmed, were advertised as per the requisition sent by the Government. 33% women's category reservation was to be provided equivalent to 38 posts taking all categories together. General Category had 60 posts, out of which 20 was for women. In SEBC Category, out of 30 posts, 10 were to be kept reserved at 33% for women. 33% women's category reservation was to be provided equivalent to 38 posts taking all categories together. General Category had 60 posts, out of which 20 was for women. In SEBC Category, out of 30 posts, 10 were to be kept reserved at 33% for women. The total post in Scheduled Caste category were 08 and in the Scheduled Tribe category they were 18, wherefrom 33% women's reservation to the extent of 2 posts and 06 posts respectively were provided. 5.5. As far as cut-off marks in each category concerned prescribed by GPSC, were undisputedly as under-(a) in General Category for Male it was 393.50 whereas for Female 363, (b) in SEBC Category, for Male it was 368 whereas for Female it was 335, (c) in Scheduled Caste Category for Male it was 334.50 whereas for Female it was 348, (d) in Scheduled Tribe Category, for Male it was 290 whereas for Female it was 266.50. 5.6. It was stated by learned Advocate General keeping in view the principles of horizontal reservation, GPSC addressed letter dated 08th July, 2019 of select list of 108 candidates out of total 115 candidates. These candidates, according to GPSC, deserve to be appointed regardless of diverse stand and that none of them were likely to be affected by outcome of the present petitions. Accordingly, 108 candidates were issued appointment letters. 6. The women's reservation quota of 33% provide by the State Government traces itself to Article 15(3) of the Constitution. The provision for women reservation made under Article 15(3), in respect of employment, is a special reservation as contrasted from social reservation which is provided under Article 16(4) of the Constitution. Special reservation is horizontal reservation. 6.1. The principle of horizontal reservation is explained by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [1992 Supp (3) 217], "[A]11 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 reservation in favour of physically handicapped [under Clause (1) of Article 16] can be referred to as horizontal reservation. Horizontal reservation cut across the vertical reservations-what is called interlocking reservations. The reservations in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes [under Article 16(4)] may be called vertical reservations whereas reservation in favour of physically handicapped [under Clause (1) of Article 16] can be referred to as horizontal reservation. Horizontal reservation 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 those horizontal reservations, the percentage of reservations in favour of Backward Class of citizens remains-and should remain-the same." (Para 812) 6.2. The method of implementing special reservation, namely horizontal reservation, cutting across the vertical reservation was explained by the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. [ (1995) 5 SCC 173 ], "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 BC; 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 per cent in favour of special categories, overall, may be satisfied or may not be satisfied.)" (Para 18) 6.3. The social reservation in favour of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or Other Backward Classes under Article 16(4) are known as vertical reservation. In such a case, the reservation of fifteen per cent in favour of special categories, overall, may be satisfied or may not be satisfied.)" (Para 18) 6.3. The social reservation in favour of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or Other Backward Classes under Article 16(4) are known as vertical reservation. The difference between the vertical reservation and the horizontal reservation was explained by the Apex Court with lucid authoritativeness in Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra), in the following words. "The second relates to the difference between the nature of vertical reservation and horizontal reservation. Social reservation 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 reservations 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 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. The entire quota will be intact and available in addition to those selected under open competition category." (Para 9) 6.4. In discerning the law and the differentiation between the two kinds of reservation above, Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra) referred to and relied on decision in Indra Sawhney (supra), R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab [ (1995) 2 SCC 745 ], Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan [ (1995) 6 SCC 684 ] and Ritesh R. Shah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul [1996) 3 SCC 253]. 6.5. The Apex Court was unequivocal in Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra) to state that the principle applicable to vertical or social reservation will not apply to horizontal or special reservation. It stated, "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 Caste women". It stated, "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 Caste 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." (Para 9) 6.6. The illustrative example was given which may also be extracted for expanse of understanding. "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 woman candidate. On the other hand, if the list of 19 SC candidates contains only two woman 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 woman SC candidates. (But if the list of 19 SC candidates contains more than four woman candidates, selected on own merit, all of them will continue in the list and there is no question of deleting the excess woman candidates on the ground that "SC women" have been selected in excess of the prescribed internal quota of four)." (Para 9) 6.7. The facts obtained in Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra) relating to the numbers, are useful to be noticed for comprehending. The facts obtained in Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra) relating to the numbers, are useful to be noticed for comprehending. In that case, "the number of candidates to be selected 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. 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.". 6.8. In Public Service Commission, Uttranchal v. Mamta Bisht [ (2010) 12 SCC 204 ], the Supreme Court applied the principle laid down in Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra). In Mamta Bisht (supra), out of 42 posts, 26 pots were filled up by General Category and 16 by Reserved Category candidates. Some women candidates were selected in General Category, whereas others were given benefit of reservation in the category of residents of Uttaranchal which was horizontal reservation. Respondent filed writ petition before the Uttaranchal High Court to quash the select list on the ground that women candidates belonging to Uttaranchal Residents Category had secured marks whereby they were eligible to be selected in General Category and it had been done so. It was the contention that therefore the respondents could have been selected in the reserved category being a woman of Uttaranchal. 6.8.1. It was the contention that therefore the respondents could have been selected in the reserved category being a woman of Uttaranchal. 6.8.1. The High Court accepted the first submission to take view that since the women candidates in the Uattaranchal Women Category had secured higher marks than the last candidate in the General Category, she should have been appointed against the General Category vacancy and respondent ought to have been offered appointment giving her the benefit of horizontal reservation for Uttaranchal woman. 6.8.2. The Supreme Court ruled that it was not to be the correct principle applied for horizontal reservation. It was held, "The High Court failed to consider the principle that if a reserved category candidate secures more marks than the last selected candidate in the general category, then he is to be appointed against the general category vacancy, does not apply while giving the benefit of horizontal reservation". 6.9. In Mamta Bisht (supra), the Apex Court considered whether horizontally reserved category persons could be adjusted against the non-reserved seats. Answering as to how the horizontal quota should be reckoned, it was held that special reservation in favour of physically handicapped persons, women etc. are horizontal in nature as contrasted from vertical reservation. It was stated that in case of vertical reservation, reserved category candidates may compete for non-reserved posts and if they are appointed to non-reserved posts on their own merit, their number will not be counted against the reserved quota. However, the said principle will not apply to horizontal reservation. Swati Gupta (Ms) v. State of U.P. [ (1995) 2 SCC 560 ] it was referred to and followed by the Supreme Court in its own other decision in Shiv Prasad v. Government of India [ (2008) 10 SCC 382 ] propounded and reiterated similar principles as regards the method of applying the vertical and horizontal reservation. 7. The horizontal reservation is the category-wise compartmentalized reservation. In that way, it is not an overall horizontal reservation. Conceptually and in it operational mode, the horizontal reservation is distinct than vertical reservation. The horizontal reservation cuts across the vertical reservation. They are provided with reference to and in respect of each compartment of category to the extent they are provided, by maintaining such extent of percentage thereof. The special reservation, such as the reservation for women's category, has a representative character. 7.1. The horizontal reservation cuts across the vertical reservation. They are provided with reference to and in respect of each compartment of category to the extent they are provided, by maintaining such extent of percentage thereof. The special reservation, such as the reservation for women's category, has a representative character. 7.1. This representative character has to be ensured in each category or compartment to the fullest percentage provided for that category. An even representation in the quota of women will have to be given, which would be true for each category, in each category or compartment. In other words, 33% women's reservation would cut across all the categories including the reserved categories provided by way of special reservation, to the benefit of women to ensure that 33% representation is maintained in each category for women candidates. Unless this method is applied, the object of providing 33% reservation to women in each category or compartment may go haywire or become illusory in a given exercise. 7.2. Gujarat Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 1997 read with Amendment Rules of 2012 and the providence in General Administration Department's Resolution dated 01st August, 2018 stand in consonance and congruity with the principles propounded by the Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra) and other decisions regarding mode of applying the horizontal reservation to the specially reserved category. As per clause 12 of Government Resolution dated 01st August, 2018 any female candidate belonging to any reserved category if selected on her own merit would be treated as general category candidate, however such a female candidate would be treated as female representative in the special reserved category, that is the category of 33% women for the purpose of considering and applying the horizontally concept. 8. Having highlighted the principles of law relating to application of horizontal reservation as above, revisiting the facts of the instant petitions would indicate that the principles and the position of law were erroneously applied by respondent GPSC. 9. The petitioner of first petition was SEBC candidate who obtained 366 marks who appeared at Serial No. 85 in the list of unsuccessful list. The petitioners of second petition belong to Open or General category. They are (i) Shital A. Nishar having obtained 354 marks and whose name appears at Serial No. 35 in the list of unsuccessful candidates; (ii) Ms. The petitioners of second petition belong to Open or General category. They are (i) Shital A. Nishar having obtained 354 marks and whose name appears at Serial No. 35 in the list of unsuccessful candidates; (ii) Ms. Bhoomika T. Akabari having obtained 348 and whose name appears at Serial No. 6 in the list of unsuccessful candidates; and (iii) Ms. Hardi J. Patel having obtained 346.50 marks and appearing at Serial No. 64 in the list of unsuccessful candidates. The petitioner of third petition happens female candidate belonging to Open Category who is Birjuben Bhatt having obtained 361.50 marks and whose name appeared at Serial No. 20 in the list of unsuccessful candidates. 9.1. As per the principles to apply to horizontal reservation and as per the contemplation in Resolution dated 01st August, 2018 which reflects the correct principle, in the SEBC Female Category, 10 seats were reserved. 06 SECB candidates at Serial Nos. 43, 46, 71, 78, 82 and 83 were available against the 10 seats. Consequently, 04 more SEBC women candidates were needed. In other words, in order to meet the shortfall, only 04 female candidates were required to be picked up. However respondent GPSC selected 10 more female candidates at Serial Nos. 84, 86, 88, 91, 92, 96, 98, 99, 100 and 101. What was done by GPSC was incorrect for applying the horizontal reservation. The course adopted was legally impermissible. The petitioners' contention has to be accepted that 06 SEBC Female candidates at Serial Nos. 92, 96, 98, 99, 100 and 101 should have been taken out from the list of 115 candidates prepared and declared by GPSC on 14.09.2018, so as to pave way for inclusion of the respective petitioners. 9.2. On the basis of the correct application of principles regarding horizontal reservation, following position would emerge, was rightly stated by learned Advocate General on behalf of the State Government. (a) 06 SEBC candidates at Serial Nos. 9.2. On the basis of the correct application of principles regarding horizontal reservation, following position would emerge, was rightly stated by learned Advocate General on behalf of the State Government. (a) 06 SEBC candidates at Serial Nos. 43, 46, 71, 78, 82 and 83 in the select list have been treated by the GPSC as the General Female candidates, since they have been accommodated on the basis of their merit; (b) However, for the purpose of compartmentalized Horizontal Reservation, the said 06 female candidates are required to be treated as SEBC Female candidates against the requirement of in all 10 SEBC female candidates; (c) In view of the above, 04 more SEBC female candidates at Serial Nos. 84, 86, 88 and 91 are required as against the requirement of 10 SEBC female candidates; (d) While retaining the 04 SEBC female candidates at Serial Nos. 84, 86, 88 and 91, remaining 06 SEBC female candidates shown at Serial Nos. 92, 96, 98, 99, 100 and 101 are required to be deleted from the select list; (e) Similarly, 01 SC female candidate at Serial No. 79-Kumar Anjali Sondarva having obtained 366.50 marks, has been included by GPSC in the General Category and treated towards General Female candidate, which is not correct and the said candidate has to be treated under the category of SC Female candidate, while taking care of required number of 02 SC Female candidates. 10. As a consequence of above discussion and the reasons, (i) Special Civil Application No. 18654 of 2018 is allowed by providing and directing that the action of respondent No. 2-Gujarat Public Service Commission in including the name of private respondent No. 3 in the category concerned is set aside; (ii) Special Civil Application No. 18968 of 2018 is allowed by providing and directing that the action of respondent No. 2-Gujarat Public Service Commission in including the name of private respondent Nos. 3 to 8 in the category concerned is set aside; (iii) Special Civil Application No. 12292 of 2018 is allowed by providing and directing that the action of respondent No. 2-Gujarat Public Service Commission in including the name of private respondent Nos. 3 to 8 in the category concerned is set aside; (iii) Special Civil Application No. 12292 of 2018 is allowed by providing and directing that the action of respondent No. 2-Gujarat Public Service Commission in including the name of private respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the category concerned is set aside; (iv) The respondent No. 2 is directed to prepare the list of the candidates in the respective categories on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra) as well as in Mamta Bisht (supra), consequentially in consonance with the Rules notified in Notification dated 14th June, 2012 and Resolution dated 01st August, 2018 of the General Administration Department of the Government as highlighted above by applying the mode of compartmentalized horizontal reservation. The name of the petitioner may be included in accordance with the exercise to be undertaken as above; (v) The list which may be prepared upon undertaking the exercise as above in respect of the petitioners in each of the three petitions shall be forwarded by respondent No. 2-Gujarat Public Service Commission to respondent No. 1-Home Department for the purpose of appointment to the post of Police Inspector, Unarmed in the same date with other successful candidates are to be appointed. The consequential benefits shall be allowed to the petitioners; (vi) The aforesaid exercise of preparing and sending list by respondent No. 2-Gujarat Public Service Commission to the State Government shall be carried out expeditiously and in any case within 10 weeks from the date of receipt of the present order; (vii) The State Government shall pass necessary consequential order within three weeks from the date of receipt of such list from Gujarat Public Service Commission. 11. All the three petitions are allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Direct service is permitted.