ORDER : 1. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent-Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur, issued an advertisement dated 04.07.2018 for inviting applications from the eligible candidates for recruitment to the posts of Stenographers in various departments. The petitioner being an eligible candidate, having all requisite educational and other qualifications, submitted her application form mentioning her category as Schedule Tribe-Woman. The petitioner appeared in the written examination on 21.03.2021 will Roll No.173356 and in the Skill Test on 29.10.2021. 2. The final result was declared on 11.5.2022 and the petitioner having secured 247.8793 marks was declared selected on her own her merit in the General Woman Category. 3. The respondents after completing the selection process invited options from the selected candidates for their posting in various departments and districts as the posting was to be given to the selected candidates on the basis of their merit-cum-preference. The petitioner submitted her preferences for posting and opted various departments at Jaipur as her top preferences. The petitioner was allotted the Office of District Collector, Bundi, which was the preference No.61. The petitioner joined at the place of posting i.e. the District Collector, Bundi and submitted representation to the authorities for allotting place of posting at Jaipur. 4. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner submitted her application form under the Scheduled Tribe Female Category but she was selected for the post of Stenographer in pursuance to the advertisement dated 04.07.2018 under the General Woman Category as she secured more marks than the cut off marks in the General Woman Category. Counsel further submitted that the respondents have allowed the posting to the petitioner as per her preference on the basis of her merit under the General Woman Category, though she was required to be given posting as per her preference on the basis of her merit in relation to the candidates selected under the Scheduled Tribe Category. Counsel further submitted and also averred in para 9 of the writ petition that the candidates namely; Lalaram Meena (Rank No.510), Mr. Satish Chand Meena (Rank No.512), Mrs. Pappu Ram Meena (Rank No.533), Mrs. Shree Lal Meena (Rank No.585) and many other less meritorious candidates have been allotted the departments of their choices or District Jaipur, though the petitioner was placed at higher rank i.e. at Rank No. 445. Satish Chand Meena (Rank No.512), Mrs. Pappu Ram Meena (Rank No.533), Mrs. Shree Lal Meena (Rank No.585) and many other less meritorious candidates have been allotted the departments of their choices or District Jaipur, though the petitioner was placed at higher rank i.e. at Rank No. 445. Counsel submitted that the action and omission of the respondents in not making allotment of the departments and District Jaipur for placing of posting to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. Mr. Ganesh Parihar, learned AAG appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was selected on the post of Stenographer in pursuance to the advertisement dated 04.07.2018 under the General Woman Category and while making allotment of departments or districts, the preference of the petitioner was taken into consideration on the basis of her merit under the category in which she was selected. He further submitted that the allocation of departments and the districts have been made to the selected candidates strictly as per the Circular issued by the Administrative Reforms Department on 18.05.2020. 6. Counsel appearing for the respondents has also placed reliance upon the order dated 20.07.2020 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case Rajesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16648/2019). 7. On consideration of the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the respective parties and the averments made in the writ petition as well as in the reply to the writ petition, the question which falls for determination before this Court is “Whether a candidate belonging to a reserved category, if selected under the General /Open Category, is required to be considered for posting as per his or her preference on the basis of his or her merit under the General /Open Category or will be considered for posting on the basis of his or her merit against the vacancies for the particular reserved category?” 8. On consideration of the facts as referred above, it is not in dispute that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe Woman Category and she has been selected on the post of Stenographer in pursuance to advertisement dated 04.07.2018 under the General Woman Category as she secured higher marks than the candidates of General Woman Category. On consideration of the facts as referred above, it is not in dispute that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe Woman Category and she has been selected on the post of Stenographer in pursuance to advertisement dated 04.07.2018 under the General Woman Category as she secured higher marks than the candidates of General Woman Category. The respondents themselves have made an averment in the reply to the writ petition that the petitioner who has been selected under the General Woman Category has been considered for posting as per her preference on the basis of her merit in the General Woman Category and not on the basis of her merit in relation to the candidates selected under the Schedule Tribe Female Category. 9. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Poonam Sharma (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.815/2019) and other connected matters decided on 29.08.2019 in similar kind of situations after taking into consideration the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:- “7. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the writ-petitioners’ arguments were merited, as the MRC candidates, treated as general category candidates on the basis of their performance, could not have been deprived of their choice allocations given that they were more merited than the concerned reserved category candidates. The Single Judge relied on Dega Venkata Harsha Vardhan (supra). The operative directions and findings of the Single Judge are to the following effect:- “Consequently I would direct that in determining the preference of the MRC candidates for allocation of ranges/ divisions as Senior Teachers they be considered against the reserved category posts in each of the division/ range for which they have sought allocation on the basis of their inter se merit vis-a-vis other reserved category candidates. I am also of the considered view that the mere fact that the RPSC made recommendations in a truncated manner cannot give any benefit to the candidates lower in the select list or any right over those higher in merit in the select list for the purpose of allocation on the basis of their merit cum preference. I am also of the considered view that the mere fact that the RPSC made recommendations in a truncated manner cannot give any benefit to the candidates lower in the select list or any right over those higher in merit in the select list for the purpose of allocation on the basis of their merit cum preference. Even otherwise in the course of hearing the petition/s it has transpired that the deficiencies in the verification process were rectified by the concerned higher placed selected candidates much before the order of allocation of divisions/ ranges to those lower in the merit in the select list drawn pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.07.2016. And it cannot with any plausibility be denied, as it was indeed not by Mr. Ganesh Meena, that where in the same list of recommendations by RPSC candidates, candidates higher in merit in the respective category have been denied their preference of allocation of ranges/ divisions while those lower in the same category were given their preference in the allocation, the respondents are under an obligation to make the requisite correction in view of the selected candidates’ legitimate expectation and ensure firm adherence to the State Government’s own guidelines of 04.03.2018. It is no doubt true that the exercise of allocation of divisions/ ranges to Senior Teachers selected pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.07.2016 has largely been completed. It is also true that redoing of the said exercise in the whole or part as would be necessitated by strict adherence to the guidelines of 04.03.2018 would entail some amount of disruption. That however by itself cannot suffice for this court to condone substantial contravention of the respondent-State Government’s guidelines dated 04.03.2018. Law, fairness and justice not expediency has to prevail. The academic year 2018-19 has been concluded. The new academic year 2019-20 is to commence only in the month of July 2019 as stated by Mr. Ganesh Meena, AAG. In these circumstances no serious unmanageable disruption in the coming academic calendar of the concerned schools is likely to be caused in the event the State Government were to be directed to strictly adhere to its guidelines of 04.03.2018 for allocation of ranges/ divisions to the Senior Teacher selected pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.07.2016.” 8. Ganesh Meena, AAG. In these circumstances no serious unmanageable disruption in the coming academic calendar of the concerned schools is likely to be caused in the event the State Government were to be directed to strictly adhere to its guidelines of 04.03.2018 for allocation of ranges/ divisions to the Senior Teacher selected pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.07.2016.” 8. The State argues that the impugned judgment is in serious error inasmuch as it overlooks that the questions relating to posting of successful candidates appointed pursuant to a recruitment process, are matters in the realm of pure administrative functions, where the scope of judicial review is limited and narrow. It is contended that the impugned order resulted in serious disruption of the entire select list. In this regard it is stated that cadre of Senior Teacher is maintained division-wise; reservation rules, therefore, were applicable in individual divisions. Having regard to the fact that the State is divided into 9 divisions, the determination of vacancies was done division-wise; even that was made on the basis of different subjects. Recommendations were received by the State on separate dates. In this regard the State relies upon a tabular statement, which indicates the relative dates on which the recommendations were received from the RPSC. 9. It is submitted that having regard to the large number of vacancies and the overarching public interest in ensuring that the Senior Teachers were assigned their divisions and concerned schools at the earliest possible time, allocations were made division-wise having regard to the dates on which the recommendations were received. It was contended that since no candidate has an inherent right to claim that the division of his/her choice has to necessarily be assigned to him/her, the Single Judge ought to have desisted from issuing the direction to rework the allocations. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the candidates, argued that the Single Judge correctly appreciated the guidelines. It was pointed out that the guidelines were framed as a first-time measure to introduce transparency in regard to allocation. No doubt, the RPSC’s recommendations were received by the State on different dates; yet the Government ought to have ensured that the guidelines were adhered to rather than breached. It was pointed out that the guidelines were framed as a first-time measure to introduce transparency in regard to allocation. No doubt, the RPSC’s recommendations were received by the State on different dates; yet the Government ought to have ensured that the guidelines were adhered to rather than breached. The MRC candidates who performed better than other reserved category candidates were placed at a distinct disadvantage inasmuch as their preference in most instances was overlooked and candidates selected on the basis of reservation, (and also lower to the MRC candidates in merit) have managed to secure preferential allocations despite their relatively lesser merit ranking. It was submitted that the decision in Dega Venkata Harsha Vardhan (supra) was, therefore, a clear binding authority which could not have been overlooked. 13. The issue of giving weightage and - as far as possible - giving effect to the preference of a candidate who secures a high ranking in the merit list, while allocating a cadre (much in the same manner as the allocation of the preferred division, as in this case), was a subject matter of a Constitution Bench ruling of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Ramesh Ram & Ors., (2010) 7 SCC 234 . In that decision, the Court resolved the conflict between different judgments. The question was whether a merited reserved category candidate (MRC), pushed up into the general category merit list and treated as an open merit candidate, can be placed at a disadvantageous position vis-a-vis a reserved category candidate in regard to allocation of cadre, especially when the less merited candidate is granted the cadre of his/her choice. The Supreme Court observed as follows:- “32. There is an obvious distinction between qualifying through an entrance test for securing admission in a medical college and qualifying in the UPSC examinations since the latter examination is conducted for filling up vacancies in the various civil services. In the former case, all the successful candidates receive the same benefit of securing admission in an educational institution. However, in the latter case there are variations in the benefits that accrue to successful candidates because they are also competing amongst themselves to secure the service of their choice. In the former case, all the successful candidates receive the same benefit of securing admission in an educational institution. However, in the latter case there are variations in the benefits that accrue to successful candidates because they are also competing amongst themselves to secure the service of their choice. For example, most candidates opt for at least one of the first three services [i.e. Indian Administrative Service (IAS), Indian Foreign Service (IFS) and Indian Police Service (IPS)] when they are asked for preferences. A majority of the candidates prefer IAS as the first option. In this respect, a Reserved Category candidate who has qualified as part of the general list should not be disadvantaged by being assigned to a lower service against the vacancies in the General Category especially because if he had availed the benefit of his Reserved Category status, he would have got a service of a higher preference. With the obvious intention of preventing such an anomaly, Rule 16 (2) provides that an MRC candidate is at liberty to choose between the general quota or the respective Reserved Category quota. *********** 36. We must also take note of the fact that when MRC candidates get adjusted against the Reserved Category, the same creates corresponding vacancies in the General Merit List (since MRC candidates are on both lists). These vacancies are of course filled up by general candidates. Likewise, when MRC candidates are subsequently adjusted against the General Category [i.e. without availing the benefit of Rule 16 (2)], the same will result in vacancies in the Reserved Category which must in turn be filled up by Wait Listed Reserved Candidates. Moreover, the operation of Rule 16 does not result in the ouster of any of the candidates recommended in the first list. Many of the wait-listed candidates are accommodated in the second stage, and the relatively lower ranked wait-listed candidates are excluded. It is pertinent to note that these excluded candidates never had any absolute right to recruitment or even any expectation that they would be recruited. Their chances depend on how MRC candidates are adjusted. 37. In the impugned judgment, the High Court had reasoned that allocation to a particular post cannot be distinguished from allocation to a service for the purpose of reservation. Their chances depend on how MRC candidates are adjusted. 37. In the impugned judgment, the High Court had reasoned that allocation to a particular post cannot be distinguished from allocation to a service for the purpose of reservation. However, the High Court had not considered the fact that in the CSE examination, the candidates are not competing for similar posts in one service but are instead competing for posts in different services that correspond to varying preferences. 38. Furthermore, the impugned judgment did not appreciate the possibility that when an SC/ST/OBC candidate qualifies on merit (i.e. without any relaxation/concession) there can be a situation where a lower ranked OBC candidate gets allotted to a better service in comparison to a higher ranked SC/ST/OBC candidate simply because the higher ranked OBC candidate performed well enough to qualify in the General Category. Such a situation is anomalous. As we have already discussed, the High Court's reliance on the decision of this Court in Union of India v Satya Prakash (supra.), is not tenable since it dealt with the effect of Rule 16 (2) as it existed prior to the amendment notified on 4.12.2004. *********** 72. We sum up our answers-: (i) MRC candidates who avail the benefit of Rule 16 (2) and adjusted in the reserved category should be counted as part of the reserved pool for the purpose of computing the aggregate reservation quotas. The seats vacated by MRC candidates in the General Pool will be offered to General category candidates. (ii)….. (iii)…. (iv) The reserved category candidates "belonging to OBC, SC/ ST categories" who are selected on merit and placed in the list of General/Unreserved category candidates can choose to migrate to the respective reserved category at the time of allocation of services. Such migration as envisaged by Rule 16 (2) is not inconsistent with Rule 16 (1) or Articles 14, 16 (4) and 335 of the Constitution.” 14. In the light of the ruling in Ramesh Ram (supra), it is no longer open to the State to contend that allocation of cadre or division, according to the preference sought from candidates, at the initial stage of the recruitment process, is a pure administrative matter. What is in issue is the fairness of the process of allocation. 15. In the light of the ruling in Ramesh Ram (supra), it is no longer open to the State to contend that allocation of cadre or division, according to the preference sought from candidates, at the initial stage of the recruitment process, is a pure administrative matter. What is in issue is the fairness of the process of allocation. 15. The peculiar condition that the State finds itself in today, is because it proceeded to make final allocations of the divisions having regard to the available materials, i.e. recommendations received at different times, from RPSC and the vacancy position that was available at the time of receipt of such recommendations. There is some merit in the State’s submission that posting orders of the selected candidates could not have been withheld to await receipt of recommendations to all the posts. Public interest of course, dictated that the teachers recruited be assigned duties as early as practically feasible. Yet, that did not mean that final allocations had to be made at the stage of assigning duties. No doubt, the cadre of Senior Teachers is maintained division-wise. Yet, the recruitment was by a common process; the rules applicable were the same and the procedure adopted too was the same. This meant that if there were some delays in forwarding recommendations, the allocations of concerned divisions had to be made finally. Until the entire picture emerged with regard to recommendation of candidates, the State could have well made provisional cadre allocations, which could have been finalized, after all recommendations had been received. In such latter event, the State would have been able to ensure that MRC candidates had a choice to seek the division which they wanted, given their relative merit ranking. In such an event, by application of the rule indicated in Para 72 (iv) of the judgment in Ramesh Ram (supra), MRC candidates would have been provided with a choice of being treated as those belonging to the general category, or being treated as reserved category candidates.” 10. It is a well settled principle of law that MRC (Migrated Reserved Candidate) treated as General Category Candidate on the basis of his or her own performance could not have been deprived of their choice for posting place being more meritorious than the other candidates of the concerned reserved category candidates. It is a well settled principle of law that MRC (Migrated Reserved Candidate) treated as General Category Candidate on the basis of his or her own performance could not have been deprived of their choice for posting place being more meritorious than the other candidates of the concerned reserved category candidates. The name of the petitioner finds place in the merit list under the General Woman Category on the basis of her own merit. Doing well in the selection process cannot be converted to be a fault of a candidate as the respondents have deprived the petitioner for a place of posting of her choice as per her preference on the basis of her merit in comparison to the candidates belonging to the Schedule Tribe Female Category and she has been given posting as per her preference on the basis of her merit in the General Woman Category. Counsel appearing for the respondents has relied upon the case of Rajesh Kumar (supra) submitting that the Coordinate Bench of this Court has opined that the respondents have allotted the Department to all the selected candidates in a valid manner and applied the formula of randomisation system through Information & Technology and no favour has been given to any candidate, and therefore, no illegality has been committed by the respondents in allotting the departments to the petitioner therein. The case referred by the counsel for the respondents i.e. Rajesh Kumar (supra) is not related to the issue which has been raised in the present writ petition. 11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Tribe Female Category and the selected candidates namely; Lalaram Meena (Rank No.510), Mr. Satish Chand Meena (Rank No.512), Mrs. Pappu Ram Meena (Rank No.533), Mrs. Shree Lal Meena (Rank No.585) and many other candidates, who were lower in merit to the petitioner under the Scheduled Tribe Category, have been allotted the departments at Jaipur or District Jaipur, as a place of posting. The petitioner who belongs to a Scheduled Tribe Category and is higher in merit to the certain other candidates in ST Category, cannot be deprived of posting as per preference given by her on the basis of her merit in regard to the Scheduled Tribe Candidates. The petitioner who belongs to a Scheduled Tribe Category and is higher in merit to the certain other candidates in ST Category, cannot be deprived of posting as per preference given by her on the basis of her merit in regard to the Scheduled Tribe Candidates. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Poonam Sharma (supra) in specific words has observed that a candidate belonging to the reserved category cannot deprived of his or her claim of posting as per his or her preference on the basis of his or her merit amongst the candidates of the respective category, though he / she may have been selected under the Open/ General Category. 12. In view of the discussion made above, this Court finds merit in the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and accordingly the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to give posting to the petitioner as per her preference on the basis of her merit in comparison to other selected candidates of Scheduled Tribe Category in a Department at Jaipur. 13. However, since all the selected candidates have joined their duties a year ago, their place of posting may not be disturbed and the petitioner may be accommodated at Jaipur as per her preference and merit in comparison to the candidates selected under ST Category. This exercise be done within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 14. However, it is made clear that the petitioner who is a candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe Category and selected under the General Woman Category claiming place of posting on the basis of her merit in comparison to the other selected candidates of Scheduled Tribe Category, shall not dis-entitle her from any benefit accruing to her in future against the Open Category vacancies or posts as like in promotions etc. 15. In view of the order passed in the main petition, the stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of.