JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J 1. The appellant has preferred the present intra-court appeal feeling aggrieved by the order dated 16.01.2018, rejecting the writ petition, which he had filed along with two other petitioners. 2. The facts in nut-shell, appertain to the present appeal are that the respondent Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. had issued an advertisement dated 06.09.2011, inviting applications for appointment to the post of Commercial Assistant-I and Commercial Assistant-II. It is to be noticed that in the advertisement aforesaid, total 35 vacancies of Commercial Assistant-I were reserved for TSP Area, out of which 16 were reserved for Scheduled Tribes; 2 for persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes of the area; 5 posts were reserved for female candidates; while remaining 12 were kept open. For Commercial Assistant-II, total 56 posts were earmarked for TSP Area, out of which 25 were reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes; 3 were reserved for candidates of Scheduled Castes of the area; 7 were reserved for women; one was reserved for widow and remaining 20 were kept in unreserved category. According to the terms of the advertisement, a candidate was required to fill one form and a common merit list was to be prepared, with a stipulation that persons higher in merit would be given appointment as Commercial Assistant-I and persons standing lower in merit list, would be appointed as Commercial Assistant-II. 3. The appellant, being a resident of District Doongarpur belonging to General Category vied for the post of Commercial Assistant, pursuant to the advertisement aforesaid. On declaration of result, he found that despite securing 65.16%, he could not get appointment. On enquiries, the appellant came to know that qua the unreserved seats, candidates from outside TSP Area have been selected. 4. The appellant, along with other two candidates, filed a writ petition before this Court (4076/2012), which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 24.01.2014. An appeal there against, being D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No.495/2014 filed by the respondent Nigam, came to be allowed by a Division Bench of this Court, vide its order dated 19.08.2015. The Divisional Bench opined that the directions given by the learned Single Judge for removal of already selected Commercial Assistant-I, while dismissing the writ petition was unsustainable and thus it remanded the matter back to the Single Judge to be decided afresh in accordance with law. The Divisional Bench opined that the directions given by the learned Single Judge for removal of already selected Commercial Assistant-I, while dismissing the writ petition was unsustainable and thus it remanded the matter back to the Single Judge to be decided afresh in accordance with law. 5. When the matter was laid before the learned Single Judge, he dismissed the same vide order dated 16.01.2018, which has been impugned in the appeal at hands. 6. The appellant’s grievance before the learned Single Judge has been that notifications/circulars of 2013 and 2016 provide for preference to the candidates of General Category of TSP Area; whereas no such preference has been given to the candidates, notwithstanding the clear stipulation in the Circular of 2007. According to the appellant, the subsequent circulars issued in 2013 and 2016, fortifies the appellant’s stand and otherwise also they being beneficial in nature, should have been given retrospective effect. 7. The learned Single Judge repelled the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the appellant and held that when the advertisement was issued on 06.09.2011, the circular dated 18.09.2007 was governing the field, which provided for reservation of 45% to the candidates of Scheduled Tribes of TSP Area and 5% to candidates from Scheduled Castes of the TSP Area only. As there was no specific reservation for the other residents of TSP Area, no reservation or preference can be provided to the candidates from unreserved category of the TSP Area. The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant that since the reservation has been provide to the candidates from open category of the TSP Area, while making selection for the post of Commercial Assistant-I, the same policy ought to have been applied for the post of Commercial Assistant-II also, has been negated by the learned Single Judge by observing that grant of such reservation to the General Candidates of TSP Area, while preparing select list of Commercial Assistant-I was erroneous and no parity can be claimed on the basis of such erroneous exercise. 8. Calling the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 16.01.2018 in question, Mr. Ritu Raj Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in rejecting the appellant’s writ petition. 8. Calling the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 16.01.2018 in question, Mr. Ritu Raj Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in rejecting the appellant’s writ petition. Inviting attention of the Court towards the notification dated 22.03.1995, particularly the words, ^bu {ks=ksa esa 'ks"k 50 izfr'kr fjfDr;ka lkekU; oxZ ds vH;fFkZ;ksa ls Hkjh tk;sxhA^^ and notifications dated 25.08.1995 and 07.11.1996, he contended that even those notifications stipulate that after providing reservation of 45% and 5% to the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes respectively, the remaining posts were to be filled by General Candidates of the TSP Area only. He submitted that the Circular issued in the year 2007, clarifies the Notification dated 12.09.2007, issued by the Governor and said circular, being analogous to the Notification dated 22.03.1995, provides that the remaining seats are to be filled by the residents of TSP Area only. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that subsequent thereto, the State Government has clarified the position and vide notification dated 16.06.2013, issued by the Governor of Rajasthan, it has been emphasized that the remaining 50% posts shall be filled by the residents of TSP Area only. Counsel for the appellant contended that the action on the part of the respondents in not providing preference to the appellant and other persons of the Tribal Sub-Plan Area, is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, more particularly when such reservation was reckoned, while preparing select list for Commercial Assistant-I. 10. He submitted that object of issuance of notification under Article 244 of the Constitution of India, is to provide reservation to persons belonging to the Tribal Sub-Plan Area, irrespective of their caste and creed. He reiterated that the posts earmarked for TSP Area are meant to be filled by persons hailing from that area, subject of course to the additional reservation to the members belonging to Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes of such areas. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and upon perusal of the material available on record, we find that the source of reservation for the Tribal Sub-Plan Area is the notification dated 12.09.2007, issued by the State Government (Governor), in exercise of powers available to him under Article 244 of the Constitution of India. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and upon perusal of the material available on record, we find that the source of reservation for the Tribal Sub-Plan Area is the notification dated 12.09.2007, issued by the State Government (Governor), in exercise of powers available to him under Article 244 of the Constitution of India. The said notification provides for reservation to the extent of 45% of the posts for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled castes and 5% of the posts for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and remaining 50% seats are left unreserved, to be filled from General Category. The said notification provides for reservation to the extent of 45% of the posts for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled castes and 5% of the posts for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and remaining 50% seats are left unreserved, to be filled from General Category. It will not be out of place to reproduce relevant notification dated 12.09.2007, issued in this regard, which has been placed on record by the respondent along with their additional affidavit:- ^^12@09@2007 vf/klwpuk jktLFkku ds jkT;iky }kjk fn;s x;s fuEufyf[kr funsZ'k loZlk/kkj.k dh tkudkjh ds fy, izdkf'kr fd;s tkrs gSA funsZ'k Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 244¼1½ ds v/khu vuqlwph ds iSjk 5 ds mi iSjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] eSa] 'khysUnz dqekj flag] jkT;iky] jktLFkku funsZ'k nsrk gWw fd fdlh Hkh vU; izo`Rr vkns'k ;k fu;e ;k fof/k esa vUrfoZ"V fdlh ckr ds gksrs gq, Hkh] Hkkjr ljdkj dh vf/klwpuk la[;k ,Q- 19¼2½80&,y&1 fnukad 12-2-81 }kjk fofufnZ"V vuqlwfpr {ks=ksa esa jkT; lsokvksa dks NksM+dj vU; lHkh jktdh; lsokvksa ds inksa ij lh/kh HkrhZ }kjk Hkjh tkus okyh fjfDr;ksa dh 45 izfr'kr fjfDr;ka vuqlwfpr tutkfr;ksa ,oa 5 izfr'kr vuqlwfpr tkfr;ksa ds LFkkuh; lnL;ksa ds vH;fFkZ;ksa ls Hkjh tk;sxhA bu {ks=ksa es 'ks"k izfr'kr fjfDr;ka lkekU; oxZ ls Hkjh tk;sxhA fjfDr;ksa dk vo/kkj.k rFkk inksa dh HkrhZ fuEufyf[kr izdkj ls dh tk;sxh % & 1& tgka HkrhZ [k.M Lrj dh tkuh gks vkSj fjfDr;ksa dk vo/kkj.k rFkk budh lax.kuk Hkh [k.M Lrj ij dh tkuh gks] ogka ,sls leLr fjfDr;ksa dh 45 izfr'kr fjfDr;ka vuqlwfpr tutkfr;ksa ,oa 5 izfr'kr fjfDr;ka vuqlwfpr tkfr;ksa ds LFkkuh; lnL;ksa ds fy, vkjf{kr dh tkosxhA 2& tgka HkrhZ ftyk Lrj ij dh tkrh gks vkSj fjfDr;ksa dk vo/kkj.k rFkk mudh lax.kuk Hkh ftyk Lrj dh tkuh gks] ogkWa vuqlwfpr [k.M ds fy, fjfDr;ka] izdfYir :i ls] ml vuqikr ds vk/kkj ij vo/kkfjr dh tk;sxh tks ftyksa ds vuqlwfpr [k.Mksa dh dqy tula[;k dk ftys dh dqy tula[;k ds lkFk gSA bl izdkj izdfYir :i ls vo/kkfjr fjfDr;ksa dh 45 izfr'kr fjfDr;ka vuqlwfpr tutkfr;ksa ds ,oa 5 izfr'kr fjfDr;ka vuqlwfpr tkfr;ksa ds LFkkuh; lnL;ksa ls Hkjh tk;sxhA 3& tgka HkrhZ jkT; Lrj ij dh tkrh gks vkSj fjfDr;ksa dk vo/kkj.k rFkk mudh lax.kuk Hkh jkT; Lrj ij dh tkuh gks ogkWa vuqlwfpr {ks= ds fy, fjfDr;ka izdfYir :i ls] ml vuqikr ds vk/kkj ij vo/kkfjr dh tk,xh tks jkT; ds vuqlwfpr {ks= ds vuqlwfpr [k.Mksa dh dqy tula[;k dk jkT; dh dqy tula[;k ds lkFk gSA bl izdkj izdfYir :i ls vo/kkfjr fjfDr;ksa dh 45 izfr'kr vuqlwfpr tutkfr;ksa ds ,oa 5 izfr'kr fjfDr;ka vuqlwfpr tkfr;ksa ds LFkkuh; lnL;ksa ls Hkjh tk;sxhA 4& ;fn vuqlwfpr {ks= ds ,d ftys esa miyC/k fjfDr;ksa dks Hkjrs le; 45 izfr'kr LFkkuh; vuqlwfpr tutkfr ds O;fDr miyC/k ugha gks rks lEiw.kZ vuqlwfpr {ks= dks ,d bdkbZ ds :i esa ekudj fdlh ftys@mi[k.M@fodkl [k.M Lrj ij dksbZ fjfDr gSa vkSj ml ftys@mi[k.M@fodkl [k.M esa tutkfr dk ;ksX; vH;FkhZ miyC/k ugha gS rks ,slh fLFkfr esa vuqlwfpr {ks= ds vU; ftyksa@fodkl [k.Mksa esa miyC/k LFkkuh; tutkfr ds ;ksX; vH;kfFkZ;ksa ls ,slh fjfDr;ksa Hkjh tk;sxh rkfd 45 izfr'kr fo'ks"k vkj{k.k j[ks tkus ds mís'; dh iwfrZ gks ldsA 5& jkT; Lrj vFkok ftyk Lrj ij vuqlwfpr [k.Mksa dh fjfDr;ksa ls fHkUu jkT;@ftys dh 'ks"k fjfDr;ka fo|eku fu;eksa ds vuqlkj vuqlwfpr tutkfr;ksa ds fy, 12 izfr'kr] vuqlwfpr tkfr;ksa ds fy, 16 izfr'kr ,oa vU; fiNMk tkfr;ksa ds fy, 21 izfr'kr vkj{k.k dh dkuwuh vis{kkvksa ds v/;/khu jgsxhA^^ 12. A perusal of the notification aforesaid reveals that, after applying reservation of 45% and 5% respectively to the candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes, remaining 50% posts were meant to be filled from unreserved or General Category. Such stipulation means that after applying 50% reservation (45% + 5%), the other seats were required to be kept open. There is no stipulation of filling the remaining 50% seats from the candidates belonging to General Category of the Tribal Sub-Plan Areas. 13. It is not in dispute that when the advertisement in question came to be issued (06.09.2011), the notification dated 12.09.2007 was in vogue. The subsequent notification/circular, which purportedly provided that the remaining 50% seats are required to be filled by the local candidates belonging to Tribal Sub-Plan Area, cannot be made applicable to the selections in question. The appellant’s reliance upon the notifications/circulars of 2013 and 2016 is utterly misplaced. 14. It is settled proposition of law that a selection has to be made on the basis of rules/law, prevailing on the date of advertisement or on the last date of filling up the form. 15. As far as argument of the appellant that the benefit of reservation should be extended to the appellant and other candidates of TSP Area for the post of Commercial Assistant-II is concerned, the same is projected on the edifice that such preference had been given to the persons selected for Commercial Assistant-I. We are of the view that unquestionably the respondent Nigam has erred in filling the posts of Commercial Assistant-I only from the residents of TSP Area; but nevertheless the appellant cannot get such reservation, particularly when we have found that the same is inadmissible on the plain reading of the notification dated 12.09.2007. 16. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he does not intend to upturn the selections already made. That apart, the candidates selected on the post of Commercial Assistant-I and Commercial Assistant-II have not been impleaded as respondents, for which any order disturbing their selection made way back in the year 2011 cannot be passed. 17. Such being the position, we do not find any substance in the appellant’s appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.