JUDGMENT M.I.Arun, J. - Aggrieved by the order dated 04.12.2017, passed by the KAT in application No.5275/2013, the applicant therein has preferred W.P.No.117767/2019. As against the said order, respondent Nos.1 to 3-State have also preferred W.P.No.103279/2018. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their ranking in 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 31.08.2012, the second respondent called for application to fill up two posts of driver in the Department of Excise, Government of Karnataka. Out of them, one post was earmarked for Scheduled Tribe (men and woman) and another post for General Merit (woman). It was also mentioned that in case a suitable woman is not found in the general merit category, male candidate can be considered. No suitable woman candidate had applied for the post. 4. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe and he had applied for the post. After due tests, the petitioner stood second amongst Scheduled Tribe candidates. It is relevant to note that respondent No.4, who also belongs to Scheduled Tribe, scored the highest marks followed by respondent No.5, who belongs to General Merit category. 5. The Department appointed respondent No.4 under the category reserved for Scheduled Tribe and respondent No.5 under General Merit category. 6. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that, respondent No.4 having secured highest marks amongst all the candidates in all categories had to be considered as against the vacancy in General Merit category and as the petitioner had secured next highest marks amongst Scheduled Tribe candidates, the reserved post for Scheduled Tribe should have been given to him. On the said grounds, he approached the KAT. 7. The KAT agreed with the contention of the petitioner herein. However, as the probationary period of respondent No.5 having already been declared, it came to the conclusion that it would not be prudent enough to disturb the appointment of respondent No.5 and his seniority. Accordingly, it has directed respondent Nos.1 to 3 to create a supernumerary post for the applicant, without disturbing the seniority of respondent No.5 and appoint the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Similarly the Government on the ground that the direction of the KAT to create supernumerary post is illegal and is not in a position to create such a post has preferred a writ petition. 8. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Similarly the Government on the ground that the direction of the KAT to create supernumerary post is illegal and is not in a position to create such a post has preferred a writ petition. 8. The contention of the petitioner is that he ought to have been recruited as against the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe and that the recruitment of respondent No.5 is illegal. For the said reasons, it is contended that he cannot be appointed as against supernumerary post and if at all any person has to be appointed as against the said supernumerary post, it should be respondent No.5 and that the petitioner should be placed above respondent No.5 in the order of seniority. 9. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have contended that the order passed by the KAT insofar as it relates to creating supernumerary post for the petitioner is bad and to that extent sought for modifying the order. 10. Respondent No.5 has justified the order passed by the KAT and sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 11. Rule 4 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977, reads as under: 4. Procedure of appointment.- Subject to the provisions of these rules, appointments to any service or post shall be made.- (1) In the case of recruitment by direct recruitment.- (a) if it is by competitive examination, in the order of merit from the list of candidates prepared by the Commission or other examining authority; (b) if it is by selection, after giving such adequate publicity to the recruitment as the Appointing Authority may determined, in the order of merit of candidates as determined by the Commission, the Advisory or Selection Committee, or the Appointing Authority, as the case may be; xxxxx 12. Thus, when any appointment is made by way of direct recruitment, either by way of competitive examination or selection, the list of candidates should be arranged in the order of merit and they should be selected in that order. It does not contemplate that the candidates belonging to the reserved category should be excluded from the order of merit. Thus, when any appointment is made by way of direct recruitment, either by way of competitive examination or selection, the list of candidates should be arranged in the order of merit and they should be selected in that order. It does not contemplate that the candidates belonging to the reserved category should be excluded from the order of merit. Thus, in case where a candidate belongs to the reserved category, performs so well that he finds a place in the general merit category, he has to be placed in the general merit category and another candidate has to be chosen as against the post reserved for that particular category. 13. The reservation is envisaged under the Constitution of India to eradicate the disadvantage suffered by candidates belonging to socially and educationally backward classes. 14. It is permissible for the State, in view of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 38 of the Constitution of India to provide for reservation. The reservations are a mode to achieve equality of opportunity guaranteed under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India and caste is one of the criteria to determine the social and educational backwardness in our country. 15. The Philosophy is upliftment of that caste group, who are subjected to social discrimination, by providing them reservation. If a candidate amongst them who are so capable to compete with General Merit candidates, he should not be considered under the reserved category, but selected under General Merit category and the benefit of reservation should go to another candidate from the reserved category. 16. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh and others vs. K.L. Narasimhan and another, (1997) 6 SCC 283 , at paragraph No.5, has held as under: 5. It is settled law that if a dalit or tribe candidate gets selected for admission to a course or appointment to a post on the basis of merit as General Merit candidate, he should not be treated as a reserved candidate. Only one who does get admission or appointment by virtue of relaxation of eligibility criteria should be treated as reserved candidate. Further, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others, (2010) 5 SCC 136 at paragraph Nos.11, 19, 20 and 21, has held as under: 11. It was argued by Mr. Only one who does get admission or appointment by virtue of relaxation of eligibility criteria should be treated as reserved candidate. Further, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others, (2010) 5 SCC 136 at paragraph Nos.11, 19, 20 and 21, has held as under: 11. It was argued by Mr. Patwalia and in our opinion rightly so that if an exserviceman candidate scored high enough marks entitling him to be selected in the exserviceman (General Category) such candidates ought to be selected in the said category instead of selecting them in the Exservicemen BC(A) or BC(B) categories. 19. It is evident from the above that in ex-servicemen (general category) the last two candidates namely: Subhash Chander and Taket Singh had scored only 25 marks each. Sube Singh and Veer Bhan selected in Exservicemen BC(B) category had however scored more marks than Subhash Chander and Taket Singh. Sube Singh and Veer Bhan could and indeed ought to have been selected against the vacancies in Ex-servicemen (General) category as per their merit. This in other words would require the Select List to be recast and candidates suitably shifted from the reserved category to the general category in which event appointments can be offered to other candidates in the Ex- servicemen BC(B) category depending on their merit. Such an exercise long after the selection process was completed may unsettle the settled position and lead to removal of candidates who stand already selected and who have been serving for a long time after undergoing the prescribed training. This may also mean that candidates who have accepted the result of the selection and may even have become over-age may have to be brought in. We do not see any compelling reason for us to adopt that course at this distant point of time especially when the same would upset what stands settled for a long time. 20. Interest of justice would in our opinion be sufficiently served if we direct the appointment of the appellant against an Exservicemen BC(B) vacancy and if no such vacancy is available against an ex-servicemen (General Category) vacancy. In the unlikely event of there being no vacancy in either one of these categories the appellant could be appointed against any other vacancy in the General category. In the unlikely event of there being no vacancy in either one of these categories the appellant could be appointed against any other vacancy in the General category. Any such appointment would, however, in keeping with the statement by the appellant be effective from the date the same is made and shall not entitle the appellant to claim any back wages, seniority or other benefits. The appointment shall for all purposes be treated as a first appointment subject to the condition that the competent authority shall be free to direct that the appellant shall undergo the training afresh or take a refresher course of such training if deemed fit. 21. In the result, we allow this appeal but only in part and to the extent that the appellant shall be appointed as a Constable in the Haryana Armed Police, Sirsa District against any vacancy in the Ex-Servicemen (General Category) or ESM/BC (B) category. If no vacancy in the said two categories is available the appellant shall be appointed against any vacancy in the General category. The appointment shall for all intents and purpose be a fresh appointment which would not entitle the appellant to any back wages, seniority or any other benefit based on his earlier appointment. The order passed by the High Court shall to the above extent, stand modified. No costs. 17. Thus, in the instant case, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 erred in appointing respondent No.4, who had scored highest marks as against the vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribe. He ought to have been selected as against the vacancy in the general merit category. The petitioner should have been selected as against the vacancy reserved for the Scheduled Tribe. Consequently, respondent No.5 should not have been selected at all. 18. The KAT came to the right conclusion that the petitioner ought to have been selected. However, it erred in holding that the selection of respondent No.5 and his seniority should not be disturbed and further erred in directing to accommodate the petitioner and that the State should create a supernumerary post, without disturbing the seniority of respondent No.5. The selection of respondent No.5 is without authority of law and is illegal and hence, the same cannot be sustained. 19. The selection of respondent No.5 is without authority of law and is illegal and hence, the same cannot be sustained. 19. The appointment of respondent No.4 has to be considered as against the appointment made in the general merit category and the appointment of the petitioner has to be considered as against the reserved category for a Scheduled Tribe. The selection of respondent No.5 is illegal. 20. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petitions are allowed. (ii) The appointment of respondent No.4 shall be considered as appointment in the general merit category by respondent Nos.1 to 3. (iii) The petitioner shall be appointed as against the vacancy to Scheduled Tribe category, his seniority will be as per the date from which he became eligible for appointment. However, he will not be entitled to any backwages or other consequential benefits for the period when he was not actually employed. (iv) The appointment of respondent No.5 is set aside. No order as to costs.