JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Precisely the question, which has fallen for adjudication in the case at hand is, “whether a candidate belonging to any of the vertical reservation categories on the basis of his/her merit is entitled to be selected in the open or general category and, in such eventuality, whether his/her selection is to be counted towards the quota granted for vertical category?” 2. Before exploring/ascertaining an answer to the aforesaid question, it would be apt to take note of certain undisputed facts, which may be germane for the adjudication of the case at hand. 3. Respondent No.3, vide advertisement No. 35-3/2019 dated 28.12.2019 (Annexure P-1) advertised 10 posts of Senior Laboratory Technician (now Medical Laboratory Technician Grade-II) under post code 749. Such posts were reserved for various categories as follows: Gen.(WXM) 05 SC(WXM) 02 ST(WXM) 01 OBC(WXM) 02 Total 10 4. Petitioner being eligible in terms of the educational qualifications prescribed in the aforesaid advertisement, applied for the post under the category of OBC (Wards of Ex-servicemen). Vide Notification dated 3.12.2020 (Annexure P-3), the petitioner was declared successful under Roll No. 749000007 in the screening test and was further directed to appear for the evaluation process on 15.12.2020. Though the petitioner appeared for the evaluation process on the given date, but in the final merit list, declared on 28.1.2021 (Annexure P-4), he could not secure a place, rather, he was placed at Sr. No. 1 in the waiting list, under the OBC(Wards of Ex-serviceman) (Annexure P-5). Perusal of Notification dated 28.1.2021, whereby result for the post under post code 749, was declared, reveals that in total 7 candidates were selected against 10 posts viz., 4 against General (Wards of Ex-serviceman), 2 under OBC(Wards of Ex-serviceman) and 1 under SC(Wards of Ex-serviceman), and three posts, one under each category of General, SC and ST (all Wards of ex-servicemen), remained vacant on account of non-availability of candidates in those categories. 5. Precisely, the grievance of the petitioner is that since candidates namely Neha Kumari and Brajesh Parihar (respondents Nos. 5 and 6 herein), who had applied against the category of OBC (Wards of Ex-serviceman) and SC (Wards of Exserviceman), respectively had secured more marks than the candidates of General (Wards of Ex-serviceman), they ought to have been placed at Sr. Nos. 1 and 2 in the merit list. Since the candidates placed at Sr. Nos. 5 and 6 herein), who had applied against the category of OBC (Wards of Ex-serviceman) and SC (Wards of Exserviceman), respectively had secured more marks than the candidates of General (Wards of Ex-serviceman), they ought to have been placed at Sr. Nos. 1 and 2 in the merit list. Since the candidates placed at Sr. Nos. 3 and 5 (respondents Nos. 5 and 6), despite having stood at first and second positions, respectively, were declared successful under OBC (W.Exsm) and SC(W.Exsm) categories respectively, petitioner, who had also applied under the category of OBC(W.Exsm), was not declared selected against the said category. A list of candidates selected is as under: Sr. No. Roll No. Name Total marks Category 1 749000001 Rajender Kumar 39.80 Gen (W.Exsm) 2 749000009 Lalit Kumar 41.24 General (W.Exsm) 3 749000012 Neha Kumari 49.00 OBC (W. Exsm) 4 749000017 Ankita Kumari 39.37 OBC (W.Exsm) 5 749000024 Brijesh Parihar 43.80 SC (W. Exsm) 6 749000027 Prakash Chand Katoch 39.51 Gen (W. Exsm) 7 749000036 Manoj Kumar 38.91 Gen (W. Exsm) 8 6. Perusal of the final result declared by the Controller of Examinations for the post in question (Annexure P-6), clearly reveals that respondents Nos. 5 and 6, who had applied against the post of OBC (W.Exsm) and SC (W.Exsm), secured 49 and 43.80 marks, respectively, whereas, candidates selected against General (W.Exsm) category namely Rajender Kumar, Lalit Kumar, Prakash Chand Katoch and Manoj Kumar, secured 39.80, 41.24, 39.51 and 38.91 marks, respectively. 7. Petitioner before this Court is a candidate who belongs to OBC (W.Exsm) category and his precise grievance is that grave injustice has been caused to him by selecting respondents Nos. 5 and 6 against two posts reserved for the categories of OBC (Wards of Ex-servicemen) and SC (Wards of Ex-servicemen). Since, respondents Nos. 5 and 6 secured more marks than the candidates belonging to General (Wards of Ex-servicemen) category, they ought to have been considered against the posts meant for the General (Wards of Ex-servicemen) and in that case, the petitioner would have been selected against one post reserved for the OBC (Wards of Ex-servicemen) category alongwith another candidate, namely Ankita Kumari, who otherwise stands selected against the post in question under the category of OBC(Wards of Ex-servicemen) being second in the list of candidates under the OBC(Wards of Ex-servicemen) category. In the aforesaid background, prayer has been made by the petitioner that the offer of appointment made to respondent No.4 against the post reserved for the General (Wards of Ex-servicemen) be quashed and set aside and a direction be issued to the Department to consider the candidature of the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 against the posts meant for the General (Wards of Ex-servicemen) category, being more meritorious and the resultant vacancy, which becomes available under OBC (Wards of Ex-servicemen)category, be filled up by selecting and appointing the petitioner. 8. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to a recent judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Saurav Yadav & Ors v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors, (Misc. Application No. 2641/19 in SLP(C) No. 23223/2018, decided on 18.12.2020, argued that a candidate belonging to any vertical reservation categories is entitled to be selected under the General or the Open category and, as such, respondents, while drawing final merit list, ought to have considered the candidature of respondents Nos. 5 and 6 under General (Wards of Ex-servicemen) category and one of the posts under the OBC (Wards of Ex-servicemen) category ought to have been offered to the petitioner. 9. Learned Additional Advocate General, while supporting the impugned decision of the respondent-State, contended that since respondents Nos. 5 and 6 had participated under particular categories, they could not have been considered against the posts meant for General (Wards of Ex-servicemen) category. He further contended that the criteria of evaluation was fair and equitable as the candidates, who participated under a particular category, are and could have been considered under that category only. To strengthen aforesaid submission, learned Additional Advocate General as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, placed heavy reliance upon a judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in case titled Vikas Kumar v. State of H.P. & ors., CWP No. 7214 of 2010, decided on 11.12.2014. 10. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record minutely. 11. There is no dispute that respondents Nos. 5 and 6, who had applied against the post in question under the categories of OBC and SC (both Wards of Ex-servicemen), secured more marks than the candidates, who had applied under the category of General (Wards of Ex-servicemen). 11. There is no dispute that respondents Nos. 5 and 6, who had applied against the post in question under the categories of OBC and SC (both Wards of Ex-servicemen), secured more marks than the candidates, who had applied under the category of General (Wards of Ex-servicemen). It is also not in dispute that the petitioner herein applied against the post meant for OBC(Wards of Ex-servicemen) and he was at sr. No.3 amongst the candidates, who had applied under the category of OBC(Wards of Ex-servicemen). If the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is accepted that respondents Nos. 5 and 6, who had secured more marks than the candidates of the General (Wards of Ex-servicemen) category, ought to have been considered against the posts meant for the General (Wards of Ex-servicemen), selection of respondent No.4-Manoj Kumar under the category of General (Wards of Ex-servicemen) is required to be quashed. 12. By now, it is well settled that if candidates belonging to reserved categories are entitled to be selected on the basis of their own merit, their selection cannot be counted against the quota reserved for the categories for vertical reservation that they belong. 13. A five-judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in R.K. Sabharwal and others v. State of Punjab and others, (1995) 2 SCC 745 , has categorically held that when a percentage of reservation is fixed in respect of a particular cadre and the roster indicates the reserve points, it has to be taken that the posts, shown at the reserve points are to be filled from amongst the members of the reserve categories and the candidates belonging to general category are not entitled to be considered for the reserved posts. Per contra, the reserve category candidates can compete for the non-reserve posts and in the event of their appointment to the said posts, their number cannot be added and taken into consideration for working out the percentage of reservation. 14. Per contra, the reserve category candidates can compete for the non-reserve posts and in the event of their appointment to the said posts, their number cannot be added and taken into consideration for working out the percentage of reservation. 14. Though, Hon'ble Apex Court in case Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and others, (2007) 8 SCC 785 , has specifically clarified that a candidate belonging to any of vertical reservation categories, on the basis of his/her own merit, is entitled to be selected under the open/general category, in such eventuality, his/her selection is not be counted towards the quota reserved for such vertical reservation categories, but since some conflicting judgments on the issue came to be rendered by various Constitutional Courts, the Hon'ble Apex Court in latest judgment in Saurav Yadav (supra) having taken note of various judgments rendered in past by it as well as other Constitutional Courts, reiterated that the candidates belonging to any of the vertical reservation categories are entitled to be selected under the open/general category, if such, candidates belonging to reserved category are selected on the basis of their merit, their selection would not be counted against the quota for such vertical reservation categories that they belong. 15. Hon'ble Apex Court in Sauav Yadav (supra), has held as under: “22. The principle that candidates belonging to any of the vertical reservation categories are entitled to be selected in “Open or General Category” is well settled. It is also well accepted that if such candidates belonging to reserved categories are entitled to be selected on the basis of their own merit, their selection cannot be counted against the quota reserved for the categories for vertical reservation that they belong. Apart from the extracts from the decisions of this Court in Indra Sawhney and R. K. Sabharwal the observations by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Shri V.V. Giri vs. Dippala Suri Dora and Others, (1960) 1 SCR 426 , though in the context of election law, are quite noteworthy. “21. … In our opinion, the true position is that a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe does not forego his right to seek election to the general seat merely because he avails himself of the additional concession of the reserved seat by making the prescribed declaration for that purpose. “21. … In our opinion, the true position is that a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe does not forego his right to seek election to the general seat merely because he avails himself of the additional concession of the reserved seat by making the prescribed declaration for that purpose. The claim of eligibility for the reserved seat does not exclude the claim for the general seat; it is an additional claim; and both the claims have to be decided on the basis that there is one election from the double-member constituency. 22. In this connection we may refer by way of analogy to the provisions made in some educational institutions and universities whereby in addition to the prizes and scholarships awarded on general competition amongst all the candidates, some prizes and scholarships are reserved for candidates belonging to backward communities. In such cases, though the backward candidates may try for the reserved prizes and scholarships, they are not precluded from claiming the general prizes and scholarships by competition with the rest of the candidates.” 23. The High Courts of Rajasthan, Bombay, Uttarakhand, and Gujarat have adopted the same principle while dealing with horizontal reservation whereas the High Court of Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh have taken a contrary view. These two views, for facility, are referred to as the “first view” and the “second view” respectively. The second view that weighed with the High Courts of Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh is essentially based on the premise that after the first two steps as detailed in paragraph 18 of the decision in Anil Kumar Gupta and Others and after vertical reservations are provided for, at the stage of accommodating candidates for effecting horizontal reservation, the candidates from reserved categories can be adjusted only against their own categories under the concerned vertical reservation and not against the “Open or General Category”. 24. Thus, according to the second view, different principles must be adopted at two stages; in that:-. 24. Thus, according to the second view, different principles must be adopted at two stages; in that:-. (I) At the initial stage when the “Open or General Category” seats are to be filled, the claim of all reserved category candidates based on merit must be considered and if any candidates from such reserved categories, on their own merit, are entitled to be selected against Open or General Category seats, such placement of the reserved category candidate is not to affect in any manner the quota reserved for such categories in vertical reservation. (II) However, when it comes to adjustment at the stage of horizontal reservation, even if, such reserved category candidates are entitled, on merit, to be considered and accommodated against Open or General Seats, at that stage the candidates from any reserved category can be adjusted only and only if there is scope for their adjustment in their own vertical column of reservation. Such exercise would be premised on following postulates: - (A) After the initial allocation of Open General Category seats is completed, the claim or right of reserved category candidates to be admitted in Open General Category seats on the basis of their own merit stands exhausted and they can only be considered against their respective column of vertical reservation. (B) If there be any resultant adjustment on account of horizontal reservation in Open General Category, only those candidates who are not in any of the categories for whom vertical reservations is provided, alone are to be considered. (C) In other words, at the stage of horizontal reservation, Open General Category is to be construed as category meant for candidates other than those coming from any of the categories for whom vertical reservation is provided. 25. The second view may lead to a situation where, while making adjustment for horizontal reservation in Open or General Category seats, less meritorious candidates may be adjusted, as has happened in the present matter. Admittedly, the last selected candidates in Open General female category while making adjustment of horizontal reservation had secured lesser marks than the Applicants. The claim of the Applicants was disregarded on the ground that they could claim only and only if there was a vacancy or chance for them to be accommodated in their respective column of vertical reservation. 26. Admittedly, the last selected candidates in Open General female category while making adjustment of horizontal reservation had secured lesser marks than the Applicants. The claim of the Applicants was disregarded on the ground that they could claim only and only if there was a vacancy or chance for them to be accommodated in their respective column of vertical reservation. 26. Both the views can be compared and the issues involved in this matter can be considered in the light of a hypothetical illustration with following assumptions: - (i) The total seats available are 100; comprising of 50 seats for ‘Open/General Category’. The reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes is at 20%, 10% and 20% respectively and all candidates from these reserved categories are otherwise eligible to be considered against Open General Category. (ii) The percentage of seats available for ‘Women’ by way of compartmentalized horizontal reservation is 30%. (iii) Out of all qualified candidates, when first 50 meritorious candidates are picked up to fill up the seats for ‘Open/General Category’:- (a) There are only 11 women in first 50 candidates in ‘Open/General Category’; and (b) the last five persons in the ‘Open/General Category’ viz., the candidates at Serial Nos.46, 47, 48, 49 and 50 are– Sl. No. 46 Open Category Male Sl. No 47 Open Category Male Sl. No. 48 Scheduled Caste Male Sl. No. 49 Scheduled Caste Male Sl. No. 50 Scheduled Caste Female (c) first four female candidates in the waiting list, who do not belong to any of the reserved categories, are having overall merit position at Serial Nos. 52, 64, 87 and 88. (d) Going by the steps indicated in paragraph 18 of the decision in Anil Kumar Gupta and Others 13, at the stage of filling up seats for Scheduled Castes Category, there are 7 females among 20 candidates with last 2 candidates being females whose overall ranking in the merit list is at Serial Nos. 80 and 86. (e) Similarly, the seats for Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Categories are filled up. (f) Out of 20 candidates selected in Other Backward Category there are 09 females. The basic features of this illustration can be put in the following tabular format. 80 and 86. (e) Similarly, the seats for Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Categories are filled up. (f) Out of 20 candidates selected in Other Backward Category there are 09 females. The basic features of this illustration can be put in the following tabular format. TOTAL SEATS : 100 CATEGORIES OPEN/GENERAL SCHEDULED CASTES SCHEDULED TRIBES OTHER BACKWARD CLASSES SEATS AVAILABLE 50 20 10 20 MINIMUM SEATS FOR WOMEN 15 6 3 6 SEATS OCCUPIED BY WOMEN BEFORE APPLICATION OF HORIZONTAL RESERVATION 11 7 3 9 SHORTFALL, IF ANY 4 NIL NIL NIL 27. Having allocated first 50 seats in Open General Category and filled up other vertical column of reservation, the next step is to effect horizontal reservation for women. If the reservation for women was to be “overall horizontal reservation”, there are 30 women (11+07+03+09) and nothing further is required to be done. However, if the horizontal reservation for women is to be taken as “compartmentalized”, as we are concerned in the present matter and the instant illustration, the appropriate steps must comprise of following:- (A) Since the shortfall for women is of four seats in Open / General Category, last four male candidates namely those at Serial Nos. 46, 47, 48 and 49 initially allocated to Open/General Category, will have to be displaced. The candidate at Serial No. 50, being a woman, cannot be displaced. (B) The male candidates at Serial Nos.46 and 47 being from Open/General Category, after such displacement will be completely out of reckoning as they cannot go to any reserved category. (C) The candidates at Serial Nos.48 and 49 being more meritorious than the candidates originally placed in the vertical column of reservation for Scheduled Castes, must go back to their own vertical column. This will cause resultant displacement of two candidates in that vertical column of reservation. The 20th candidate, whose overall merit position is at Serial No.86, though a female, but being in excess of quota for Scheduled Castes females and a male candidate immediately above the 19th candidate will thus get displaced. 27.1 If we go by the second view, the female candidates at Serial Nos.52, 64, 87 and 88 must be accommodated against Open General Category seats whereas the candidate at Serial No.86, though more meritorious then those at Serial Nos.87 and 88, must be left without any seat. 27.1 If we go by the second view, the female candidates at Serial Nos.52, 64, 87 and 88 must be accommodated against Open General Category seats whereas the candidate at Serial No.86, though more meritorious then those at Serial Nos.87 and 88, must be left without any seat. On the other hand, if we go by the first view, the claim of reserved category candidates if they are more meritorious, has to be considered, in which case the candidate at Serial No.86 will be required to be accommodated. Resultantly, the candidate at Serial No.88 must give way. There can be various such permutations and combinations and in a given case, the concerned female candidates from reserved category in the Waiting List for their respective vertical columns of reservation, may be more meritorious than the female candidates in the Waiting List for Open / General Category seats. The instant illustration is given to highlight the situation that can possibly emerge if the second view is adopted. 28. The second view, based on adoption of a different principle at the stage of horizontal reservation as against one accepted to be a settled principle for vertical reservation, may thus lead to situations where a less meritorious candidate, not belonging to any of the reserved categories, may get selected in preference to a more meritorious candidate coming from a reserved category. This incongruity, according to the second view, must be accepted because of certain observations of this Court in Anil Kumar Gupta and Others and Rajesh Kumar Daria. The following sentences from these two decisions are relied upon in support of the second view:- “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.” [from paragraph 18 of Anil Kumar Gupta13] “But the aforesaid principle applicable to vertical (social) reservations will not apply to horizontal (special) reservations.” [from paragraph 9 of Rajesh Kumar Daria14] 29. These sentences are taken to be a mandate that at the stage of horizontal reservation the candidates must be adjusted /accommodated against their respective categories by deleting corresponding number of candidates from such categories and that the principle applicable for vertical (social reservation) will not apply to horizontal (special reservation). These sentences are taken to be a mandate that at the stage of horizontal reservation the candidates must be adjusted /accommodated against their respective categories by deleting corresponding number of candidates from such categories and that the principle applicable for vertical (social reservation) will not apply to horizontal (special reservation). In our view, these sentences cannot be taken as a declaration supporting the second view and are certainly being picked out of context. The observations in paragraph 18 in Anil Kumar Gupta and Others contemplated a situation where if “special reservation candidates” entitled to horizontal reservation are to be adjusted in a vertical column meant for “social reservation”, the corresponding number of candidates from such “social reservation category” ought to be deleted. It did not postulate that at the stage of making “special or horizontal reservation” a candidate belonging to any of the “social reservation categories” cannot be considered in Open/General Category. It is true that if the consideration for accommodation at horizontal reservation stage is only with regard to the concerned vertical reservation or social reservation category, the candidates belonging to that category alone must be considered. For example, if horizontal reservation is to be applied with regard to any of the categories of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes, only those candidates answering that description alone can be considered at the stage of horizontal reservation. But it is completely different thing to say that if at the stage of horizontal reservation, accommodation is to be considered against Open/General seats, the candidates coming from any of the reserved categories who are more meritorious must be side-lined. That was never the intent of the observations sought to be relied upon in support of the second view. Similarly, the observations in Rajesh Kumar Daria14 were in the context of emphasizing a distinguishing feature between vertical and horizontal reservations; in that:- (a) At the stage of vertical reservation, the reserved category candidates selected in Open/General category are not to be counted while filling up seats earmarked for the corresponding reserved categories. (b) But the same principle of not counting the concerned selected candidates is not to apply for horizontal reservation. (b) But the same principle of not counting the concerned selected candidates is not to apply for horizontal reservation. Adopting principle (a) at the stage of horizontal reservation, the respondents in Rajesh Kumar Daria had separately allocated 11 seats for women in General Category as part of special or horizontal reservation, though another set of 11 women candidates had got selected, according to their own merit, in General Category quota. The quota of 11 seats for women having been already satisfied, this Court negated the theory that their number be disregarded while making horizontal reservation for women. It was in that context that the distinction between vertical and horizontal reservations was highlighted by this Court in paragraph 9 of the decision. The subsequent sentence “thus women selected on merit within the vertical reservation quota will be counted against the horizontal reservation for women” in the very same paragraph and the illustration given thereafter are absolutely clear on the point. 30. The decision of this Court in Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal vs. Mamta Bisht was also completely misunderstood. In that case one Neetu Joshi had secured a seat in General Category on her own merit and she also answered the category of horizontal reservation earmarked for “Uttaranchal Mahila”. The attempt on part of Mamta Bisht, the original writ petitioner, was to submit that said Neetu Joshi having been appointed on her own merit in General Category, the seat meant for “Uttaranchal Mahila” category had to be filled up by other candidates. In essence, what was projected was the same stand taken by the respondents in Rajesh Kumar Daria , which was expressly rejected in that case. It is for this reason that para 15 of the decision in Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal vs. Mamta Bisht19 expressly returned a finding that the judgment rendered by the High Court in accepting the claim of Mamta Bisht was not in consonance with law laid down in Rajesh Kumar Daria14 and the appeal was allowed. This decision is thus not of any help or assistance in support of the second view. 31. The second view is thus neither based on any authoritative pronouncement by this Court nor does it lead to a situation where the merit is given precedence. Subject to any permissible reservations i.e. either Social (Vertical) or Special (Horizontal), opportunities to public employment and selection of candidates must purely be based on merit. 31. The second view is thus neither based on any authoritative pronouncement by this Court nor does it lead to a situation where the merit is given precedence. Subject to any permissible reservations i.e. either Social (Vertical) or Special (Horizontal), opportunities to public employment and selection of candidates must purely be based on merit. Any selection which results in candidates getting selected against Open/General category with less merit than the other available candidates will certainly be opposed to principles of equality. There can be special dispensation when it comes to candidates being considered against seats or quota meant for reserved categories and in theory it is possible that a more meritorious candidate coming from Open/General category may not get selected. But the converse can never be true and will be opposed to the very basic principles which have all the while been accepted by this Court. Any view or process of interpretation which will lead to incongruity as highlighted earlier, must be rejected. 32. The second view will thus not only lead to irrational results where more meritorious candidates may possibly get sidelined as indicated above but will, of necessity, result in acceptance of a postulate that Open / General seats are reserved for candidates other than those coming from vertical reservation categories. Such view will be completely opposed to the long line of decisions of this Court. 33. We, therefore, do not approve the second view and reject it. The first view which weighed with the High Courts of Rajasthan, Bombay, Uttarakhand and Gujarat is correct and rational. 34. It must be stated here that the submissions advanced by the Advocate General for Uttar Pradesh as recorded in the order dated 16.03.2016 before the Single Judge of the High Court (quoted in paragraph 9 hereinabove) were absolutely correct. The Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court completely erred in rejecting the stand taken on behalf of the State. It appears that after such rejection, the Procedure laid down for completing the recruitment exercise as referred to in the order dated 22.02.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court (quoted hereinabove in paragraph 11) had stated in step 4.1 that candidate not belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes category alone would be considered against general category. Said Procedure and especially step 4.1 was erroneous but was perhaps guided by the declaration issued by the High Court earlier. On the other hand, the stand taken by the Advocate General for Maharashtra as recorded by the High Court of Bombay in Charushila vs. State of Maharashtra was correct. 35. We must also clarify at this stage that it is not disputed that the Applicant no.1 and other similarly situated candidates are otherwise entitled and eligible to be appointed in ‘Open/General Category’ and that they have not taken or availed of any special benefit which may disentitle them from being considered against ‘Open/General Category’ seat. The entire discussion and analysis in the present case is, therefore, from said perspective.” 16. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court that the candidates, who are entitled to the benefit of special category reservation, can compete /be selected against the posts meant for general category on the basis of their merit. Contrary view, if any, taken would result in selecting candidates in general category with lesser merit, which otherwise is not permissible. Aforesaid law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, which is virtually a reiteration of the earlier law laid down in R.K. Sabharwal (supra) and Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra), has been violated by the respondent-State, by not considering candidature of respondents Nos. 5 and 6 against the posts meant for the general category, as result of which, petitioner, who is at Sr. No.3 in the OBC (Wards of Ex-servicemen) category has lost his right to be selected against one of the posts reserved for the OBC (Wards of Ex-servicemen) category. 17. Reliance placed by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 upon the judgment in Vikas Kumar (supra) rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court, is wholly misconceived and cannot be applied in the facts of the present case, especially in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Saurav Yadav (supra). Perusal of the aforesaid judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court, reveals that it, after having taken note of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Anil Kumar Gupta vs. State of U.P, (1995) 5 SCC 173 and Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra), arrived at the following conclusion: “10. Perusal of the aforesaid judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court, reveals that it, after having taken note of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Anil Kumar Gupta vs. State of U.P, (1995) 5 SCC 173 and Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra), arrived at the following conclusion: “10. The proper and correct course for the respondents in this case was to have first filled up all the ten vacancies on the basis of merit and then fill up the special reservations i.e. Ex-serviceman, IRDP and Home Guard. If the quota fixed for horizontal reservation was already satisfied, no further question would arise. But in case there was a shortfall and the reservation had not been satisfied, the requisite number of special reservation candidates were required to be taken and adjusted/ accommodated against their respective categories i.e. Exserviceman, IRDP and Home Guard by deleting the corresponding number of candidates therefrom.” 18. Hon'ble Apex Court in Saurav Yadav (supra) has categorically held in paragraphs Nos. 28 and 29 of the judgment, as has been taken note herein above, that the second view, based on adoption of a different principle at the stage of horizontal reservation as against one accepted to be a settled principle for vertical reservation, may thus lead to situations where a less meritorious candidate, not belonging to any of the reserved categories, may get selected in preference to a more meritorious candidate coming from a reserved category. 19. In the afore paragraphs of the latest judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court, their Lordships have clarified that the observations made in paragraph-18 of Anil Kumar Gupta (supra) and paragraph-9 of Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra) cannot be taken as a declaration supporting the second view and are certainly being picked out of context. Hon'ble Apex Court, in the aforesaid judgment has also clarified that the observations made in paragraph-18 of Anil Kumar Gupta (supra) contemplated a situation, where if “special reservation candidates” entitled to horizontal reservation are to be adjusted in vertical column meant for “social reservation”, the corresponding number of candidates from such “social reservation category”, ought to be deleted. It did not postulate that at the stage of making “special or horizontal reservation”, a candidate belonging to any of the “social reservation category” cannot be considered against open or general category. 20. It did not postulate that at the stage of making “special or horizontal reservation”, a candidate belonging to any of the “social reservation category” cannot be considered against open or general category. 20. In the afore paragraphs of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court, their Lordships have clarified that the observations made in paragraph-18 of Anil Kumar Gupta (supra) and paragraph-9 of Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra) cannot be taken as a declaration supporting the second view and are certainly being picked out of context. Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, has further held that the observations in paragraph 18 in Anil Kumar Gupta (supra) contemplated a situation where if “special reservation candidates” entitled to horizontal reservation are to be adjusted in a vertical column meant for “social reservation”, the corresponding number of candidates from such “social reservation category” ought to be deleted. Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that at the stage of making “special or horizontal reservation” a candidate belonging to any of the “social reservation categories” cannot be considered in Open/General Category. 21. Since the findings rendered by learned Single Judge in Vikas Kumar (supra) are also based upon wrong interpretation of judgments rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Anil Kumar Gupta (supra) and Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra), same cannot be made applicable/relied upon in the facts of the present case. 22. In view of the detailed discussion made supra, we are of the firm view that the selection made by respondent No. 3 vide Annexure P-4 is not in conformity with the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court on the subject, and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 23. In view of above, the petition is allowed. Annexure P- 4 is quashed and set aside, being contrary to the settled legal position. Respondent No.3 is directed to, within two weeks from today, in conformity with the observations made herein supra, redraw the selection list of all the categories qua the selection in question, and proceed thereafter, to sponsor the names of the selected candidates to the requisitioning Department. Petition stands disposed in the afore terms, alongwith all pending applications.