JUDGMENT : V.B. Mayani, J. 1. The appellants were the original respondents Nos. 7 and 9 and the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were the original petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 15903 of 2013 which has been decided by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 16.7.2014 allowing the writ petition of the present respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and, therefore, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said decision, present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellants. 2. In the present appeal the appellants have prayed in para-4 as under:- "(a) to admit this Letters Patent Appeal and to allow the same; (b) to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dtd. 16.7.2014 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in SCA No. 15903/2013 (Coram : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Harsha Devani), and to direct the reinstatement of the appellants in service with continuity and all other consequential benefits." 3. It is the case of the appellants that Forest Department of the State of Gujarat issued an advertisement dated 27.8.2012 for the recruitment of posts of Vanrakshak Sahayak, Class-III (Beat Guard) for total vacancy of 527 posts. Out of the said posts, 38 posts were allotted to Narmada District. Out of those 38 posts, 14 posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Socially and Economically Backward Class candidates. As per the Government Notification, 30% posts are required to be reserved for women candidates in each category. After the calculation and considering the Government Notification, appointments were given to the appellants on the post of Vanrakshak Sahayak, Class-III (Beat Guard). While they were in service, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed Special Civil Application No. 15903 of 2013 before this Court in which it had been contended by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 that the calculation for the post of women reservation is not made properly as per the Government Notification. It was also contended by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in the above mentioned Special Civil Application that they are on the higher side in the merit list, even though they were not appointed for the above posts and present appellants were appointed on the post of Vanrakshak Sahayak, Class-III (Beat Guard) in the women quota by erroneous calculation. It was also contended by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in the above mentioned Special Civil Application that they are on the higher side in the merit list, even though they were not appointed for the above posts and present appellants were appointed on the post of Vanrakshak Sahayak, Class-III (Beat Guard) in the women quota by erroneous calculation. The learned Single Judge after considering the arguments advanced by both the sides and judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court and Government Notification etc., came to the conclusion that the appellants herein are appointed on the basis of erroneous calculation and the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein are on the higher side in the merit list and, therefore, they are entitled for appointment on the said posts. In view of the judgment and order passed in Special Civil Application No. 15903 of 2013, the concerned authority has cancelled the appointment of present appellants. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said decision passed in Special Civil Application No. 15903 of 2013 the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed. 4. Mr. K.B. Pujara, the learned advocate for the appellants mainly submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the advertisement dated 27.8.2012 and the Government Notification in its proper perspective. He submitted that the appellants were at Serial Nos. 33 and 35 in the merit list and they are also women and, therefore, they are entitled to be appointed in the reserved quota for women in addition to the women who are appointed on the merit list in the general category. He submitted that the reservation for women quota is exclusive from the merit list, even though the women come in the particular category on the basis of merit then the women who appointed on merit shall not be considered at the time of calculating the women quota for that particular category. 5. Mr. Pujara also submitted that the concerned authority has rightly calculated the women quota in the above mentioned category of 24 posts. If women are selected on some post in merit list of 24 posts for general category then those women who are appointed on merit should be excluded and the women reservation 30% quota should be filled up only from the women for the vacant posts in the same category. 6. Mr. If women are selected on some post in merit list of 24 posts for general category then those women who are appointed on merit should be excluded and the women reservation 30% quota should be filled up only from the women for the vacant posts in the same category. 6. Mr. Pujara submitted that in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1412 of 2019 the Division Bench of this Court has considered the above mentioned fact and one woman, namely, Dr. Komal had been appointed as doctor. He also submitted that the calculation and interpretation as well as appreciation of the learned Single Judge was erroneous whereas the authority has rightly considered all facts and circumstances and merit list as well as the Government Notification in right perspective and thereby appointed the appellants for the above mentioned posts. He also submitted that the appellants are discharged from the duty on the basis of result of the above mentioned Special Civil Application but at the same time when the Letters Patent Appeal is pending the steps taken by the authority is not proper. At last he submitted to allow the present Letters Patent Appeal and to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dtd. 16.7.2014 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in SCA No. 15903 of 2013 and reinstate the appellants on the above mentioned posts of Vanrakshak Sahayak, Class-III (Beat Guard) with all available benefits. Alternatively, learned advocate Mr. Pujara had submitted that the concerned authority may be directed to consider the case of the appellants whenever the appellants apply. 7. Mr. Nikhil S. Kariel, the learned advocate for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 mainly submitted that the original 24 posts for the General Category was divided into two parts, 17 posts on merit and 07 posts reserved for women. He submitted that 07 posts of women are required to be calculated along with women who are appointed in the merit list of 17 posts and, therefore, there should not be excessive appointment of women which may be more than reserved quota. He submitted that the reservation for women is on the horizontal side and not on the vertical side and, therefore, in a specified category the reservation of the women shall be calculated on the basis of total candidates in that category. He submitted that the reservation for women is on the horizontal side and not on the vertical side and, therefore, in a specified category the reservation of the women shall be calculated on the basis of total candidates in that category. He submitted that in the present case total posts in the General Category for women is 24 and 30% of the said 24 posts come to 07 posts for women and, therefore, in that category total women should not exceed more than 30%. 8. Mr. Kariel has drawn attention of this Court towards the Government Notification as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Daria vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, reported in 2007 (8) SCC 785 . He submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has also considered that in a category specified for the women, reservation should be calculated 30%, including the women come in the list on the basis of merit. At last, he submitted to dismiss the present Letters Patent Appeal and confirm the judgment and order dtd. 16.7.2014 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in SCA No. 15903 of 2013. 9. The following particulars are not in dispute:- (i) There were 527 posts of Vanrakshak Sahayak, Class-III (Beat Guard) in the State of Gujarat and for filling of the vacancy of 527 posts an advertisement dated 27.8.2012 was published. Out of 527 posts 38 posts were allotted to Narmada District. (ii) Out of 38 posts of Narmada District 14 posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Socially and Economically Backward Class candidates whereas 24 posts were vacant for General Category. (iii) Out of the above mentioned 24 posts for General Category 30% were reserved for women which comes to 07 posts for women candidates to be selected on the above mentioned posts of General Category. (iv) The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were on serial Nos. 25, 26, whereas the appellants were on serial Nos. 33 and 35 in the merit list. 10. The main controversy between the parties are that as per the submissions the of appellants the reservation for women is on the basis of vertical side and, therefore, 30% (07 posts) are reserved for women candidate in addition to the women who are selected in the select list on the basis of merit, as per the submissions of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 the reservation for women 30% means 07 posts is to be calculated on the horizontal theory and total 07 posts for women to be calculated including those women who are selected on the basis of merit in the merit list. 11. In this regard it is not in dispute that 30% reservation has been granted to the women in each category. 12. The Government Notification dated 09.04.1997 and circular dated 22.5.1997 is for the reservation of women in the Government service. In this circular at Point No. 7, the issue is discussed regarding the question that if a woman candidate is selected on the basis of merit then how the reservation for woman is to be considered. In this regard the answer of the above mentioned question is given in the affirmative and stated that the intention of the Government to fill up 30% posts by women candidate and, therefore, at the time of calculation 30%, the candidate selected on the basis of merit is to be considered at the time calculation of 30% reservation for women and if any shortfall is therein, then the shortfall is to be taken on the basis of reservation for women. In view of above mentioned Government Notification and circular it has been specifically stated that if any woman candidate selected on the basis of merit then at the time of considering 30% reservation for women reservation, the women who are selected on the basis of merit are to be taken into consideration and only shortfall is to be taken by way of women reservation to complete 30% reservation for women. 13. The Gujarat Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 1997 is produced at Annexure-E at page-156 of the compilation. Thus the Rule-3 reads as under:- "Rule 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 Art. 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. Explanation: (i) Horizontal and compartmentalized reservation means respective quota of posts reserved in favour of women under clause (3) of Art. 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 Art. 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 be necessary for further selection towards the reservation quota of women. Only if there is any shortfall of the 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." In this regard as per the above mentioned Rule-3 the reservation of the post for women is horizontal and compartmentalized and women selected on merit within vertical reservation shall be counted against the horizontal reservation for women within that category, meaning thereby women candidates who are selected on the basis of merit are to be considered at the time of considering the reservation for women i.e. 30%. 14. In the case of Rakesh Kumar Daria vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, reported in 2007 (8) SCC 785 , the Larger Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the Apex Court held that the women reservation within the category is to be considered horizontal and at that time the women selected as per the merit is to be considered at the time of considering the reservation of women. The facts of this judgment is mentioned in para-3 which reads as under:- "3. The appellant in this appeal (Rajesh Kumar Daria) and the third appellant in the connected appeal (Mohan Lal Soni) were OBC candidates. The other five appellants in the connected appeal were general category candidates. They were not selected. The facts of this judgment is mentioned in para-3 which reads as under:- "3. The appellant in this appeal (Rajesh Kumar Daria) and the third appellant in the connected appeal (Mohan Lal Soni) were OBC candidates. The other five appellants in the connected appeal were general category candidates. They were not selected. According to them, women candidates were selected in excess of their reservation quota, contrary to the Rules. They contended that though the Rules provided for horizontal reservation of 20% for women category wise, RPSC while preparing the selection list, had wrongly applied the principles of vertical reservation and had selected women in excess of the quota, thereby denying selection of the appellants and other male candidates. It was contended that they had secured higher marks than the selected women candidates and but for the excess selection of women candidates, they would have been selected. The appellants in these appeals along with some other aggrieved candidates therefore filed W.P. No. 4150/2002 seeking a declaration that the selection list dated 30.12.2001, was bad in law to the extent of excess selection of women candidates and for a consequential direction to fill those vacancies with male candidates. They (writ petitioners) also sought a direction that they should be appointed if it was found that they had secured the necessary marks." In the above mentioned judgment in para-10 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "10. In this case, 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 & 41 of the Selection List) and another eleven (candidates at Sl. 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 & 41 of the Selection List) and another eleven (candidates at Sl. Nos. 54, 61, 62, 63, 66, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79 & 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." 15. In view of above mentioned judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court the women who are selected on the basis of merit are to be considered at the time of considering 30% reservation quota for women. 16. Mr. Pujara, learned advocate for the appellants relied upon the judgment dated 10.9.2009 of this Court delivered by Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1412 of 2009 and allied matters. In this judgment there were total 40 vacancies and, therefore, out of that 28 posts were considered as General Category and 12 posts were considered reserved for women. In this regard 28 posts which were on the basis of merit contained only 02 male candidates, whereas 30% reservation for women. In other words, 12 posts were full filled up by women candidates. Thereafter Dr. Komal Manubhai Katara requested that there is vacancy in 28 posts which is on merit, out of which only 02 vacancy has been filled up by male candidate whereas other are vacant. The authority had not appointed the petitioner - Dr. Komal Manubhai Katara on the post in the category of merit list of 28 candidates because 30% women reservation was already filled up and, therefore, denied appointment to Dr. Komal Manubhai Katara. Therefore, she preferred Special Civil Application and thereafter Letters Patent Appeal No. 1412 of 2009. In the above mentioned Letters Patent Appeal it was considered that when there is 28 posts to be filled by way of merit and there is a vacancy in the merit then the woman candidate can be appointed who is entitled in the merit list as per her merit and, therefore, Dr. Komal Manubhai Katara was appointed considering that merit list is not only for male member. 17. Komal Manubhai Katara was appointed considering that merit list is not only for male member. 17. In the present case vacancy of women is 30% means 07 candidates are required to be considered and where the reservation of women is to be considered including women selected on merit is to be considered or not, whereas in the judgment of the Apex Court, Dr. Kumar wants to be appointed on the basis of merit and not on the basis of reservation as in the present case. Therefore, the facts and circumstances of the above mentioned citation and of the present case are different because in the case of above mentioned Letters Patent Appeal cited by the appellant side list of merit was not fully filled up by the candidates of merit and only 02 male candidates were appointed, considering the merit list only for male and reservation for women. Here such situation is not prevailing. In the present case some women are also appointed on the basis of merit as they are considered at the time of calculation of 30% reservation for women. 18. The concerned authorities have submitted that there is no any vacancy to adjust present appellants. 19. We have considered the judgment and order dated 16.7.2014 passed in Special Civil Application No. 15903 of 2013. The learned Single Judge has considered all the facts and circumstances, Government Notification as well as judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the right manner and proper perspective and not committed any error and, therefore, there is no merit in the present Letters Patent Appeal, hence it deserves to be dismissed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The judgment and order dated 16.7.2014 passed in Special Civil Application No. 15903 of 2013 by the learned Single Judge is confirmed. Before parting, it is expected that the concerned authority consider the case of the appellants sympathetically and in accordance with law, whenever the appellants apply in this regard. Direct service is permitted.