JUDGMENT : AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J. 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “(i) That respondent No.1 may be directed to consider and sponsor name of petitioner for appointment to the post in question. (ii) That, result dated 8.1.2021 (Annexure P-5) may be quashed and set aside to the extent respondent No.2 has been shown qualified under Roll No.771000045 from General Category.” 2. As the Court is not convinced that there is any merit in the petition, the same is being dismissed in limini. 3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are as under:- Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur invited applications for appointment against various posts, vide advertisement No.35-3/2019, dated 28.12.2019. This included the post of Technician Electrical on contract basis in the pay scale of 5910- 20200+288GP. In terms of the advertisement, four posts of Technician Electrical were advertised. Two were advertised under the category of General (unreserved), one under the category of EWS and one under the category of Scheduled Caste (unreserved). The petitioner had applied to be considered for appointment against the post in issue as a General Category candidate. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that vide Annexure P-4, the private respondent stands appointed to the post in issue meant for General category, though the private respondent had applied to be considered for the post in issue under the Scheduled Caste Category. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as respondent No.2 had applied in his capacity as a Scheduled Caste (BPL) candidate, therefore, he should have been considered and appointed only against the vacancies, if any, reserved for Scheduled Caste (BPL) category and he could not have been offered appointment against a post meant for General category. 6. On a pointed query of the Court as to what was the merit of the private respondent, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that he was more meritorious than last candidate selected under General category. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in the present petition. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in the present petition. It is settled law of the land that a person belonging to Scheduled Caste category, if on merit, performs better than General category candidates, then he has to be offered appointment against a post meant for General category and he cannot be pushed down so as to occupy a post reserved for Scheduled Caste category only. The reason and rational behind the said law as laid by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is that if a person belonging to Scheduled Caste category or may Scheduled Tribe category, is in a position to gain employment on his own merit by scoring marks at level with persons belonging to General category candidates, then such a candidate has to be offered a post belonging to General category so that other Scheduled Caste/Tribe candidates can be appointed against the posts which are reserved for that particular category. 8. As it is not in dispute that respondent No.2 has been offered appointment, may be against General category post, but purely on his own merit, this Court finds no infirmity in the act of the respondent No.1of offering appointment to the private respondent against a post reserved for General category. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed in limini, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.