JUDGMENT : (Alok Kumar Verma, J.) 1. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly do not oppose the Application (MCC No.14102 of 2022) seeking restoration of the writ petition, which was dismissed in default on 21.03.2022 as well as the Application (IA No.14103 of 2022) seeking condonation of delay in filing the Application for restoration. Accordingly, both these Applications are allowed. 2. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, respondent no.2, issued an Advertisement on 28.09.2013 inviting applications from the candidates for 24 posts of the Uttarakhand Judicial Service-Civil Judge (Junior Division). Out of total advertised 24 posts, four posts were available for the Scheduled Caste category and one post was for Scheduled Caste Uttarakhand Female candidate. The said Advertisement included the particulars required to be filled up by the candidates. It was provided inter alia in para 1 of the Advertisement- Applicants must disclose their category/sub-category related to their vertical/horizontal reservation in the online applications. In case of non-claiming of reservation, the benefit of reservation will not be allowed to the applicants in view of the order dated 08.06.2010 passed by the High Court and the Order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.(S)19532 of 2010. 3. The case of the petitioner is that she is a resident of Uttarakhand belonging to the Scheduled Caste category. She filled the application form. The final result of the examination was declared. Petitioner had secured 462 marks, whereas, respondent no.3 obtained 441 marks. Respondent no.3 was selected. Respondent no.2 has wrongly shown the category of petitioner as Scheduled Caste only, but has not shown the petitioner as to Scheduled Caste Uttarakhand Female candidate. Based on the marks obtained by the petitioner, she is entitled to be included in the select list. Petitioner submitted a representation on 02.12.2014 before respondent no.2, but the respondent no.2 did not response to the said representation. Therefore, she has filed the present writ petition. 4. Mr. A.M. Saklani, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that petitioner is a domicile of State of Uttarakhand and she had submitted her application form as Scheduled Caste candidate, therefore, she should be considered for selection as against Scheduled Caste Uttarakhand Female. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for respondent no.3, contended that petitioner claimed for the benefit of reservation under Scheduled Caste category in her application form. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for respondent no.3, contended that petitioner claimed for the benefit of reservation under Scheduled Caste category in her application form. In the Advertisement, there was a specific sub-category of Uttarakhand Female in all the categories, therefore, in order to avail the benefit of a particular sub-category, the candidate must apply in the said sub-category. Respondent no.3 had applied under the sub-category, Uttarakhand Female of the category of Scheduled Caste and she was selected accordingly. 6. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for respondent no.3, further contended that petitioner claimed for the benefit of reservation only under Scheduled Caste category in her application form and accordingly she was considered according to her merit in the Scheduled Caste category of preliminary examination, written examination and result of final selection was declared according to her claim under Scheduled Caste category. Now, petitioner claims her selection under Scheduled Caste Uttarakhand Female category, which is against the terms and conditions of Advertisement and order of this Court. 7. In support of his said contentions, Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate has relied upon the judgment dated 05.05.2010, passed by this High Court in Writ Petition No.244 of 2010(S/S) titled, “Shalini Dadar vs. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission and batch”, whereby, the Court observed, “In the present case, the petitioners did not fill up the column relating to Uttaranchal female in column No.12 and, consequently, the horizontal benefit of Uttaranchal female was not granted to them. The petitioners themselves chose not to seek the benefit as an Uttarakhand female. The respondents, consequently, did not grant them the said benefit. To that extent, there is no error on the part of the respondents in not granting the benefit of Uttarakhand female to the petitioners. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds that the petitioners are not entitled to be given horizontal benefit of a female candidate belonging to Uttarakhand since the petitioners did not fill up the category for availing the benefit of Uttarakhand female in column No.12”. 8. Where a direction is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way. It is well settled that if a particular procedure in filling up the application form is prescribed, the application form should be filled up following that procedure. 9. 8. Where a direction is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way. It is well settled that if a particular procedure in filling up the application form is prescribed, the application form should be filled up following that procedure. 9. Admittedly, petitioner did not follow the directions given in the Advertisement and she did not fill up column of sub-category of Uttarakhand Female, therefore, her claim for Uttarakhand Female cannot be sustained. 10. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed; the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.