ORDER Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - This petition questions the correctness of the order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench (for short ’the tribunal’) by which the Original Application NO.417/2017 was allowed and the department of Northern Western Railway (the petitioner) has been directed to appoint the respondent- Suresh Kumar on the post of Assistant Station Master at Jaipur Division with all consequential benefits. 2. The issue in this petition is ’Whether Meritorious Reserve Candidates can be put in disadvantageous position, if he secures higher merit/marks in comparison to Unreserved Category/General Candidates ?’ 3. The facts, in brief, of the case are that the Department of Northern Western Railway issued an advertisement No.02/2015 on 12.06.2015 for appointment on the posts of 38 Assistant Station Masters (for short ’ASM’) for various categories. In pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement, the respondent No.1 submitted an application under the category of Other Backward Class (for short ’the OBC’) and he participated in the selection process and he was placed at S.No.16 in the list of unreserved candidates as per his higher performance. When the respondent No.1 was not given posting at Jaipur Division and ignoring his merit, he was given posting / appointment in Bikaner Division and the less meritorious candidate of OBC category (i.e. respondent No.2-Shankar Lal Kumawat) was given posting/appointment in Jaipur Division, the petitioner approached the tribunal by way of filing original application with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to allow this original application and further be pleased to quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 16.06.2017 (annexure-A/1) and the respondents be directed to appoint to applicant at Jaipur Division on the basis of the higher merit in the category of OBC with all consequential benefits. Any other order or relief which this Hon’ble Tribunal deems it fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the applicant." 4. The Department of Railways submitted their reply and stated that in all 38 vacancies were advertized for appointment on the posts of ASM, out of which 20 posts were advertized for General Category Candidates, 9 posts were advertized for OBC category candidates, 6 posts were advertized for Scheduled Caste candidates and 3 posts were advertized for Scheduled Tribe candidates. The Department of Railways submitted their reply and stated that in all 38 vacancies were advertized for appointment on the posts of ASM, out of which 20 posts were advertized for General Category Candidates, 9 posts were advertized for OBC category candidates, 6 posts were advertized for Scheduled Caste candidates and 3 posts were advertized for Scheduled Tribe candidates. As per the averments made in the reply, the respondent No.1-Suresh Kumar stood at S.No.16 in the merit of General Category Candidates and the vacancies for General Category Candidates were available division wise in Jaipur Division 4, Ajmer Division 2 and in Bikaner Division 14. Since 4 vacancies were available in Jaipur Division, so, all the 4 vacancies were allotted to General Category Candidates who were higher in the merit of General Category and all the 4 persons were higher in the merit in comparison to respondent No.1-Suresh Kumar and the merit of respondent No.1-Suresh Kumar was 16 in the General Category Candidates, so he was allotted Bikaner Division according to his merit in in the General Category against the General Category posts. It was also stated in the reply that respondent No.2- Shankar Lal Kumawat was selected against the OBC Quota and on the basis of his merit in OBC category, he was given posting in Jaipur Division. It was also stated in the reply that as per the General Guidelines of the Notification, the selected candidates can be posted anywhere in Northern Western Railway. 5. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the tribunal allowed the original application filed by respondent No.1-Suresh Kumar vide order dated 02.03.2022 directing the petitioner i.e. Department of Railways to appoint him at Jaipur Division with all consequential benefits. 6. 5. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the tribunal allowed the original application filed by respondent No.1-Suresh Kumar vide order dated 02.03.2022 directing the petitioner i.e. Department of Railways to appoint him at Jaipur Division with all consequential benefits. 6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the tribunal, the petitioner has submitted instant petition before this Court inter alia that though the respondent No.1-Suresh Kumar participated in the process for selection for appointment on the post of ASM under OBC category but he secured higher merit and marks and on the basis of his higher merit, he was treated as a General Category Candidate and he stood at S.No.16 in the merit list of General Category Candidates and in all only 4 vacancies for General Category Candidates were available in Jaipur Division and since the respondent No.1-Suresh Kumar, was at S.No.16, hence, he was allotted Bikaner Division, according to his merit in the General Category. 7. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No.2-Shankar Lal Kumawat was selected against the reserved category i.e. OBC category, though his merit/marks were less in comparison to the respondent No.1-Suresh Kumar, but he was given appointment in Jaipur Division in the category of OBC candidates. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per the terms and conditions No.5 and 6 of the advertisement/notification dated 24.07.2015, the selected candidates are liable to be posted anywhere in Northern Western Railway and as per condition No.6, the decision of the Railway Recruitment Cell in Jaipur in the selection shall be final. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that looking to all these aspects the impugned order dated 2.3.2022 passed by the tribunal is liable to be quashed and set aside. 8. Heard. Considered the arguments. 9. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1-Suresh Kumar participated in the process of selection under the OBC category. Since he secured higher merit and marks, so he was treated and considered a candidate in the list of General Candidates. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.2-Shankar Lal Kumawat, is also a candidate of OBC category and he has secured less marks in comparison to respondent No.1-Suresh Kumar but even then respondent No.2-Shankar Lal Kumawat was given posting in Jaipur Division and inspite of securing more marks and merit, respondent No.1-Suresh Kumar was given posting in Bikaner Division. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.2-Shankar Lal Kumawat, is also a candidate of OBC category and he has secured less marks in comparison to respondent No.1-Suresh Kumar but even then respondent No.2-Shankar Lal Kumawat was given posting in Jaipur Division and inspite of securing more marks and merit, respondent No.1-Suresh Kumar was given posting in Bikaner Division. The stand taken by the Department of Railways is not tenable in the eye of law for the reason that a Meritorious Reserved Candidate (for short ’MRC’) cannot be put in a disadvantageous position if he has secured more marks and merit in comparison to the less marks of the reserved category candidate. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alok Kumar Pandit Vs. State of Assam & Ors., in Civil Appeal No. 8499 of 2012, decided on 26.11.2012, has held as under:- "1) A reserved category candidate who is adjudged more meritorious than open category candidate is entitled to choose the particular service/cadre/post as per his choice/preference and he cannot be compelled to accept appointment to an inferior post leaving the more important service/cadre/post in the reserved category for less meritorious candidate of that category. 2) On his appointment to the service/cadre/post of his choice/preference, the reserved category candidate cannot be treated as appointed against the open category post." 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anurag Patel Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission & Ors., in Appeal (Civil) No.4794 of 1998, decided on 29.09.2004 has held as under:- "it is a clear injustice to the persons who are more meritorious and directed that a list of all selected backward class candidates shall be prepared separately including those candidates selected in the general category and their appointments to the posts shall be made strictly in accordance with merit as per the select list and preference of a person higher in the select list will be seen first and appointment given accordingly, while preference of a person lower in the list will be seen only later. We do not think any error or illegality in the direction issued by the Division Bench of the High Court." 12. In the case of Dega Venkata Harsha Vardhan v. Akula Ventaka Harshavardhan, reported in (2019) 12 SCC 735 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in para No.20 as under:- "20. We do not think any error or illegality in the direction issued by the Division Bench of the High Court." 12. In the case of Dega Venkata Harsha Vardhan v. Akula Ventaka Harshavardhan, reported in (2019) 12 SCC 735 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in para No.20 as under:- "20. In the case of Civil Services Examinations, some services are more coveted than others and successful candidates compete amongst themselves to secure services of their choice. A meritorious reserved category candidate, who qualifies on his own merit to get a rank in the general list, should not be disadvantaged by reason of being assigned a less coveted service against the vacancies in the general category. Such a candidate, can therefore, choose to shift to the reserved category under Rule 16(2) of the Civil Services Examinations Rules. However, meritorious reserved category candidates who avail the benefit of Rule 16(2) and are adjusted in the reserved category are to be counted in the reserved quota and the seats vacated by meritorious reserved candidates in the general category pool are to be offered to general category candidates. This principle is not attracted in cases of medical admissions." 13. Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ritesh R. Sah Vs. Dr. Y.L. Yamul and others, reported in (1996) 3 SCC 253 , has held as under:- "In view of the legal position enunciated by this Court in the aforesaid cases the conclusion is irresistible that a student who is entitled to be admitted on the basis of merit though belonging to a reserved category cannot be considered to be admitted against seats reserved for reserved category. But at the same time the provisions should be so made that it will not work out to the disadvantage of such candidate and he may not be placed at a more disadvantageous position than the other less meritorious reserved category candidates. The aforesaid objective can be achieved if after finding out the candidates from amongst the reserved category who would otherwise come in the open merit list and then asking their option for admission into the different colleges which have been kept reserved for reserved category and thereafter the cases of less meritorious reserved category candidates should be considered and they be allotted seats in whichever colleges the seats should be available. In other words, while a reserved category candidate entitled to admission on the basis of his merit will have the option of taking admission in the colleges where a specified number of seats have been kept reserved for reserved category but while computing the percentage of reservation he will be deemed to have been admitted as an open category candidate and not as a reserved category candidate." 14. There is no force in the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner that more Meritorious Reserved Candidates (MRCs) who have reckoned as General Category Candidates at the selection for the reason of their better performance at the recruitment process, cannot be denied benefit of allocation of Division for the reserved category candidates in different Division on being treated as General Category Candidates and not Reserved Category Candidates. To do so would be to penalize and put to disadvantageous position MRC candidates than those selected as Assistant Station Masters only on the strength of their belonging to Reserved Category Candidates. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dega Venkata Harsha Vardhan (supra) has categorically held that a MRC candidate cannot be placed in a disadvantageous position by not permitting him to be treated as reserved candidate, as that would amount to making him suffer for his better performance in the competitive examination. No doubt, the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court was in context with the admission to P.G. College but yet in the underlying case not permitting MRC candidate in allocation for Division for the Reserved Category Candidate will be putting them at a disadvantageous position in comparison to reserved category candidates. 15. In view of the discussions made here-in-above, there is no force in the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioners. 16. The petition is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. 17. The stay application and all pending application(s) also stand disposed of. 18. There shall be no order as to costs.