JUDGMENT : Vipin Sanghi, J. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to declare the denial of benefit of reservation available to Uttarakhand General (Women) for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Hindi - to which category the petitioner belongs, in respect of the selection process held in the year 2016 by the respondent no.1-Uttarakhand Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalyala to be arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner further seeks a writ of certiorari calling for the records to quash the appointment of respondent no.3-Umesh Kumar Shukla, who has been appointed as Assistant Professor (Hindi) in the aforesaid selection process undertaken in the year 2016. She also seeks a direction that respondent no.2 should appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi) from the due date when other persons were selected in the selection process held in the year 2016 by giving her the benefit of reservation available to Uttarakhand Women (General). 2. The relevant facts may be stated. The respondent-University issued the advertisement on 22.04.2015, inviting applications to fill up several posts, including one post of Assistant Professor in Hindi. 3. The said post was stated to be an un-reserved post. The advertisement also stated at Note No.15 that reservation would be granted as per the prevailing government policy. The petitioner made her application in response to the said advertisement for the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi), and she claimed reservation as Uttarakhand Women. 4. The respondents called the qualified candidates for interview. In the interview process, the petitioner was awarded 73.99 marks, which was the highest marks awarded to any woman candidate. Pertinently, in the Marking Scheme, 12 marks were awarded to the candidates, who were holding Ph.D. and the petitioner was also awarded 12 marks by the respondent-University. The case of the petitioner is that in the cadre of Assistant Professor, there are 31 posts. As per the Reservation Policy of the Government, which was then prevalent, vide G.O. dated 24.07.2006, 30% horizontal reservation was granted to women of Uttarakhand. The petitioner states that, by virtue of Note-15 of the advertisement, the said Government Order dated 24.07.2006 was attracted, and therefore, 30% of the 31 seats in the cadre of Assistant Professor ought to be reserved for women of Uttarakhand. 5. The petitioner states that, by virtue of Note-15 of the advertisement, the said Government Order dated 24.07.2006 was attracted, and therefore, 30% of the 31 seats in the cadre of Assistant Professor ought to be reserved for women of Uttarakhand. 5. The case of the petitioner is that prior to the initiation of the recruitment process by the aforesaid advertisement dated 22.04.2015, there was only one woman of Uttarakhand, who was serving in the cadre of Assistant Professor at the respondent-University. 30% (thirty per cent) of the 31 posts in the cadre of Assistant Professor would translate to nine posts, which ought to have been reserved for the women of Uttarakhand. 6. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent-University, however, did not apply the horizontal reservation, and despite the fact that the petitioner had secured the highest marks amongst all women candidates for the post of Assistant Professor in Hindi, she was not granted the appointment to the advertised post. Instead, respondent no.3 was selected and granted appointment, on the ground that he had secured the highest marks i.e. 81.33. On the aforesaid premise, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition soon after the appointment of respondent no.3 to the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi). 7. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent authorities were bound to grant reservation for women of Uttarakhand in terms of the aforesaid Governmental Policy dated 24.07.2006. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a reading of the counter affidavit, filed by the respondent-University, also shows that the respondent-University does not deny the fact that horizontal reservation for Women of Uttarakhand is mandatorily required to be granted. In para 17 of the counter affidavit-in response to para nos. 14 and 15 of the writ petitions, respondent nos. 1 and 2 states “that the remaining vacant posts will be filled up and in that recruitment process, the relevant reservation will be given which will comply the female reservation also.” Therefore, there is no denial of the fact that the respondent-University was bound to grant horizontal reservation for women candidates of Uttarakhand. 9. The submission of learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 is that respondent no.3 being the most meritorious candidate, was granted appointment, and consequently, there is no illegality in the same. 9. The submission of learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 is that respondent no.3 being the most meritorious candidate, was granted appointment, and consequently, there is no illegality in the same. He further submits that no specific reservation was granted in respect of one post of Assistant Professor in Hindi, which was a General Category post. At the same time, learned counsel for the respondent does not deny the fact that vide Note-15 of the advertisement, the respondent-University was bound to grant reservation in terms of the governmental policy. It is also not disputed that the current governmental policy, when the advertisement was issued in the year 2015, was the one contained in the G.O. dated 24.07.2006, which provided for 30% horizontal reservation for women of Uttarakhand. 10. Respondent no.3 has also filed his counter affidavit and is represented. The submission of learned counsel for respondent no.3, firstly, is that respondent no.3 cannot be put to prejudice at the stage since, it was not his fault, and that he was selected by the respondent-University in the selection process on the basis of his merit. He further submits that respondent no.3 has served in the respondent-university for the past six years. Though, it is not disclosed in the counter affidavit, learned counsel for respondent no.3 has argued that prior to being appointed by the respondent-University, respondent no.3 was serving at Boy’s Anglo Bengali Inter College in Lucknow on regular basis, and he held a lien on the said post when he joined as Assistant Professor (Hindi) in respondent-University, which lien stood extinguished with the passage of time. He submits that respondent no.3 would be left in lurch at this stage of his life, if he is removed from the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi), over which the petitioner is taking claim. 11. Further submission of respondent no.3 is that the petitioner had sought exemption from NET/SLET in terms of the “UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2009” framed on 23.09.2009. 11. Further submission of respondent no.3 is that the petitioner had sought exemption from NET/SLET in terms of the “UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2009” framed on 23.09.2009. Clause 3.3.0 and 3.3.1 of the said regulations dated 23.09.2009 reads as follows:- “3.3.0 The minimum requirements of a good academic record, 55% of the marks at the master’s level and qualifying in the National Eligibility Test (NET), or an accredited test (State Level Eligibility Test - SLET/SET), shall remain for the appointment of Assistant Professors. 3.3.1. NET/SLET/SET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professors in Universities / Colleges / Institutions. Provided, however, that candidates, who are or have been awarded Ph. D. degree in compliance of the “University Grants Commission (minimum standards and procedure for award of Ph.D. Degree), Regulations 2009, shall be exempt from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in Universities / Colleges / Institutions”. 12. The submission is that the petitioner was wrongly awarded the Ph.D. degree, since the said Ph.D. degree was awarded in the year 2012, when there was a requirement of passing an admission test before admission to Ph.D. could be granted in terms of the “UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Awards of M.Phil/ Ph.D. Degree) Regulation 2009”, dated 01.06.2009, which came into force on 11.07.2009. 13. In response to the said submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner, firstly, submits that the petitioner was enrolled in the Ph.D. Course on 24.11.2008, i.e. before the Regulations dated 01.06.2009 came into force. The petitioner completed her Ph.D. in the year 2012 and was issued a certificate by the Gurukul Kangri University, Haridwar (Deemed to be University) dated 26.11.2012, to certify that the petitioner was enrolled for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) of Gurukul Kangri Vishwavidhyala, Haridwar, in the subject/field HINDI. She was awarded Degree in the year 2012. It further goes on to state that “the Ph.D. Degree has been awarded by the Vishwavidyalaya in accordance with the provisions of the UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Awards of M.Phil/ Ph.D. Degree) Regulation 2009”. 14. She was awarded Degree in the year 2012. It further goes on to state that “the Ph.D. Degree has been awarded by the Vishwavidyalaya in accordance with the provisions of the UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Awards of M.Phil/ Ph.D. Degree) Regulation 2009”. 14. Learned counsel further submits that respondent no.3, in fact, has no locus to raise the said issue with regard to the petitioner’s Ph.D. Degree, as also the exemption granted to her from NET/SLET in terms of “UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2009” framed on 23.09.2009, since the respondent-University has accepted the petitioner’s Ph.D. qualification, and on that basis, has entertained the petitioner’s application while exempting her from NET/SLET. 15. Learned counsel further points out that the petitioner was, in fact, awarded 12 marks-since she holds the Ph.D. degree, while evaluating the candidates. 16. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, we are inclined to allow the present writ petition. 17. It is abundantly clear from the factual narration aforesaid that the respondent-University was bound to grant 30% horizontal reservation for women candidates of Uttarakhand while filling up the advertised vacancies. The cadre of Assistant Professors, in all subjects put together, consists of thirty-one posts. The extent of horizontal reservation which was in force on the relevant date when the advertisement was issued was 30%. Consequently, nine posts ought to have been reserved to be horizontally filled up by women candidates of Uttarakhand. The petitioner has pointed out that only one post in the cadre of Assistant Professor was earlier filled up by a woman candidate, i.e. before the start of selection process, in question. Thus, there were eight posts in the cadre of Assistant Professors, which ought to have been filled up through horizontal reservation by women candidates of Uttarakhand. 18. Admittedly, the respondent-University did not honour the said horizontal reservation, granted in favour of women of Uttarakhand, while undertaking the selection process in the year 2016, even though, the petitioner had offered her candidature for the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi) in the said category of women of Uttarakhand. It is not the case of the respondent-University that the petitioner was not qualified to be appointed to the said post of Assistant Professor (Hindi), which was general category post. It is not the case of the respondent-University that the petitioner was not qualified to be appointed to the said post of Assistant Professor (Hindi), which was general category post. However, the respondent-University went only by merit and appointed respondent no.3 on the ground that he had secured the highest marks, thereby overlooking the mandate of 30% reservation for women of Uttarakhand. Denial of the said post to the petitioner, even though she was fully qualified, and had secured the highest marks in the interview process amongst all the women candidates, was unjustified and illegal. 19. The respondent-University admits to the fact that it was bound to provide horizontal reservation to women candidates of Uttarakhand, as is evident from its stand in Paragraph No.17 of the counter-affidavit, which we have extracted hereinabove. 20. The submission of the learned counsel for respondent no.3 that the petitioner was wrongly exempted from NET/ SLET, in terms of the “UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2009”, framed on 23.09.2009, has no merit. This is for the reasons that the respondent no.3 has no locus standi to challenge the Ph.D. degree granted to the petitioner by the Gurukul Kangri University, Haridwar (deemed to be University). The respondent-University has accepted the Ph.D. degree of the petitioner, which was duly certified by the Gurukul Kangri University, Haridwar (deemed to be University) on 26.11.2012. The respondent-University even awarded 12 marks to the petitioner for holding the Ph.D. qualification in Hindi. Even otherwise, reliance placed by respondent no.3 on the “UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Awards of M.Phil/ Ph.D Degree) Regulation 2009”, dated 01.06.2009, is misplaced inasmuch, as, those Regulations came into force on 11.07.2009 by when the petitioner had already enrolled for the Ph.D. programme on 24.11.2008. The respondent no.3 has not been able to show that the said Regulations dated 01.06.2009 had retrospective effect, and applied even to those candidates who had enrolled for the Ph.D. degree course prior to coming into force of the said Regulations dated 01.06.2009. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner was entitled to be appointed to the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi), against which post, respondent no.3 was appointed. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner was entitled to be appointed to the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi), against which post, respondent no.3 was appointed. Respondent no.3 having been illegally appointed, has no vested right to continue in the said post of Assistant Professor (Hindi). 21. Keeping in view the overall circumstances of the case, and the fact that the respondent no.3 has been serving in the capacity of Assistant Professor (Hindi) in the respondent-University for the last about six years, we dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:- (i) We direct the respondent-University to appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi) by implementing the horizontal reservation for women of Uttarakhand forthwith. Her appointment shall be with retrospective effect from the date when the respondent no.3 was appointed, though notionally. The petitioner shall not be entitled to any arrears of pay, and allowances, since she has actually not served in the post. However, for the purposes of seniority, pay fixation, pension (if payable) etc, her services shall be deemed to have commenced from the date when the respondent no.3 was appointed. (ii) Respondent no.3 has been caught in this situation for no fault of his. He, having served the respondent-University for six years, has been left in the lurch at this stage of his life, and it would be most unfair that he should suffer now due to the mistake committed by the respondent-University. Had the respondent-University acted legally and appointed the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi) in place of respondent no.3, he would not have lost his job with Boy’s Anglo Bengali Inter College, Lucknow. We, therefore, direct the respondent-University, and the State of Uttarakhand to forthwith take up the case of respondent no.3 for consideration for his appointment by creation of a supernumerary post of Assistant Professor (Hindi) in the respondent-University, only till so long as respondent no.3 continues to serve in that capacity at the respondent-University. (iii) The respondent-University and the State of Uttarakhand shall take a decision on creation of supernumerary post within the next two months. In case, the supernumerary post is created, the services of respondent no.3 shall be continued, and he shall be deemed to have continued without a break in service. 22. The parties are left to bear their respective costs.