JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition with a prayer that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to provide reservation of one post for OBC (women) candidate on the post of Deputy Collector in advertisement dated 17.12.2014. Subsequently, the prayer clause was amended and it has also been prayed for quashing of selection of respondent No.3 on the post of Dy. Collector as OBC candidate (Sr. No. 10). 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the respondent No. 1 had issued an advertisement for appointment of officers on different posts of the State Civil Services including the post of Deputy Collector. It is contended that in the advertisement total 21 posts for appointment on the post of Dy. Collector were advertised in which 9 posts for unreserved for candidates, 2 posts for Scheduled Caste Category, 7 posts for Scheduled Tribe Category and 3 posts for backward class category were reserved. It is further contended that reservation has been provided as per the reservation policy prevailing in the State of Chhattisgarh. The advertisement further provides that 2 posts are reserved for Unreserved Women Category candidates and 2 posts for Women belonging to the Scheduled Tribe Category. But no posts of OBC (Women) have been provided for appointment on the posts of Dy. Collector which is violation of Women Reservation Rules, 1997. Hence, this petition for direction to the State to provide reservation of one posts for OBC Woman candidates on the post of Dy. Collector in the advertisement dated 17.12.2014. 3. The Public Services Commission has filed their return in which they have annexed distribution of vacancies for various category of women to substantiate that they have complied with the Women Reservation Rules 1997. Collector in the advertisement dated 17.12.2014. 3. The Public Services Commission has filed their return in which they have annexed distribution of vacancies for various category of women to substantiate that they have complied with the Women Reservation Rules 1997. The PSC has annexed the chart to demonstrate how they have calculated the vacancies for women reservation which reads as under:- lh/kh Hkjrh ls Hkjs tkus mi;qDr inks dh la[;k dk fooj.k Ø Js.kh dqy fjDr inks dh la[;k Dqy fjfDr;ksa es fodaykx vkosndksa ds fy, vkjf{kr inksa dh la[;k dqy fjfDr;ks esa ls fodykax vkosndks ds fy, vkjf{kr inksa dh la[;k ¼1½ vukjf{kr inksa dh la[;k 9 2 && ¼2½ vuqlwfpr tkfr ds fy, vkjf{kr inksa dh la[;k 2 & & ¼3½ vuwlwfpr tutkfr ds fy;s vkjf{kr inksa dh l[;k 7 2 && ¼4½ vU; fiNMsa oxZ ds fy;s vkjf{kr inksa dh la[;k 3 && && ¼5½ Dqy ;ksx 21 04 && 4. As per the advertisement, total 21 posts were advertised out of which 9 posts were for unreserved candidates out of which as per women reservation Rules 30% posts have to be reserved for unreserved women which comes to 2.7. Similarly for Scheduled Caste 2 posts was advertised, 30% posts have to be reserved for Scheduled Caste women which comes to 0.6. Likewise, for Scheduled Tribe 7 posts was advertised, 30% posts have to be reserved for Scheduled Tribe Women which comes to 2.1 and for Other backward class 3 posts was advertised, 30% posts have to be reserved for OBC women which comes to 0.9. 5. The chart would demonstrate that PSC has adopted uniform pattern by ignoring the fractions. It has also been contended that State vide its letter dated 06.12.2014 (Annexure R/1-1) has intimated the PSC that the reservation of the post should be kept on the basis of percentage and the Rules of rounding off will not be applicable while treating the post reserved for reserve categories. It has also been contended that State vide its letter dated 06.12.2014 (Annexure R/1-1) has intimated the PSC that the reservation of the post should be kept on the basis of percentage and the Rules of rounding off will not be applicable while treating the post reserved for reserve categories. To substantiate his submission that principle of round off is not applicable in reservation has referred the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in bunch of cases in WP No. 599 of 2005 and other connected petitions wherein the Coordinate Bench has held in paragraph 19.1 of its judgment which reads as under:- 19.1 Learned Counsel for the private respondent submit that 30% of two would come to 0.6, which is certainly more than 0.5, therefore, the rule of rounding off based on logic and common sense should be applied and it should be treated as 1 and in this sense, the Commission does not fall in error if it has treated on post as reserved for women applying the principles of horizontals and vertical reservation as per the Rules of 1997. He refers to two decisions of the Apex Court rendered in the matter of State of U.P and another -VsPawan Kumar Tiwari and others (2005) SCC 10 and Rajesh Kumar Gupta and others -Vs State of U.P and others, 2005 AIR SCW 2731. In the first case, the Ape Court directed that the rule of rounding off based on logic an common sense is 4 that if part is one half or more, its value shall be increased to 1 and if part is less than half then its value shall be reservation was permissible and if one post out of two general category shall be reserved for women, it goes to 50% the same is violative of these rules. If we are the advertisement dated 04.07.2003, it would appear that when the three posts were available in general category, then one post was reserved for women. If we are the advertisement dated 04.07.2003, it would appear that when the three posts were available in general category, then one post was reserved for women. However, when the corrigendum was issued on 19.5.2004 and one post was withdrawn, it was particularly mentioned in the corrigendum that aber withdrawal of the said one post from the general category, now out of total 5 posts available, two posts shall be available for general category, one for S.C., one for S.T., and one for O.B.C. In the corrigendum, though the details of posts reserved in various categories have been given, but it has never been stated that out of these two posts available in general category, one post shall be reserved for women as it was very specifically stated in the first advertisement dated 04.7.2003. In this manner, on comparison of these two declarations one in advertisement and the other in corrigendum, it would appear that no post was kept reserved for women in the general category after issuance of corrigendum, but ultimately the P.S.C. declared the result of Smt. R. Bamb as selected in women reserved category of general candidates. 6. The private respondent has filed its return and would submit that the petitioner’s name was not found in the merit list, as such she has no locus standi to file the petition and to stop the selection proceedings. He would further submit that the petitioner has participated in the selection process without any objection therefore, she cannot challenge the selection process that the women reservation has not been followed. He would further submit that the petitioner has not secured her position in the merit list still she has filed the petition to stop the appointment procedure, therefore, the instant petition may be kindly be dismissed with cost. 7. Learned Sr. Advocate would submit that as per advertisement dated 17.12.2014 Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission has issued advertisement for apportionment of various posts in which reservation for woman category OBC has been provided except for the post of Dy. Collector, which shows that woman candidates belonged to OBC has been discriminated by the respondents. Learned Sr. Advocate would submit that 30% reservation is calculated which comes to 0.9 therefore, it should be round off 1 and accordingly one post should be reserved for OBC women candidate. Collector, which shows that woman candidates belonged to OBC has been discriminated by the respondents. Learned Sr. Advocate would submit that 30% reservation is calculated which comes to 0.9 therefore, it should be round off 1 and accordingly one post should be reserved for OBC women candidate. She would further submit that if the State while issuing the advertisement has not kept one posts for OBC woman category which is violation of Women Reservation Rules. According to her, the post is to be reserved for every section of the society by horizontal and vertical reservation, as such there is violation of reservation Rule 1997. She would further submit that since reservation has not given to OBC women, therefore, inclusion of respondent No. 3 in the final merit list published on 16.07.2016 be kindly set aside. In support of her submission learned counsel for the petitioner would rely the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Prasad vs. Government of India and other 2008 (10) SCC 382 . 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. From the above factual matrix of the case, the point to be determined by this court is whether writ of mandamus can be issued to the State to provide reservation for OBC women to comply with the Woman Reservation Rules 1997, when the vacancies to the extent of fulfilling 30% is not available. 10. To better understand the controversy raised in the petition, it is expedient for this Court to extract MP/Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Special Provisions for appointment of Women) Rules 1997 which reads as under:- 3. Reservation of posts for women. Notwithstanding anything contained in any service Rules, there shall be reserved thirty percent of all posts in the service under the State in favour of women at the stage of direct recruitment and the said reservation shall be horizontal and compartment-wise. 6 Explanation. For the purposes of this rule "horizontal and compartment-wise reservation" means reservation in each category, namely, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and General. 4. Age relaxation. There shall be age relaxation of ten years for women candidates for direct appointment in all posts in the services under the State in addition to the upper age limit prescribed in any service rules or executive instructions. 5. Power to remove difficulties. 4. Age relaxation. There shall be age relaxation of ten years for women candidates for direct appointment in all posts in the services under the State in addition to the upper age limit prescribed in any service rules or executive instructions. 5. Power to remove difficulties. If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of these rules, it shall be referred to the State Government in the General Administration Department whose decision thereon shall be final. 11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has participated in the selection process and has never challenged the advertisement issued by the Public Services Commission wherein no post was reserved for OBC women. Even in the writ petition she has not challenged the advertisement issued by the State and with an open eye she has participated in the selection process, therefore, in view of well settled legal position of law that once the candidate participated in the selection process without demure, subsequently he/she is estopped from challenging the same on this count alone the writ petition ideserves to be dismissed by this Court. 12. In stead of dismissing the instant writ petition on the aforesaid reasoning this court is also examining the other grounds raised by the petitioner. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that point .90 should be round off so that a direction can be issued to the State to reserve one post for OBC woman. To substantiate her submission she has referred the case of Shiv Prasad vs. Government of India and others (2008)10 SCC 382 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under in paragraph 25 to 30 as under:- 25. In Indra Sawheny (I), Justice Jeevan Reddy dealt with this aspect. His Lordship observed that there are two types of reservations; (i) 7 vertical reservations; and (ii) horizontal reservations. They must be so applied as not to exceed the percentage of reservations which is permissible under law. This can be done by 'interlocking reservations'. His Lordship proceeded to state (SCCpp 735-36 para 812) “812……..There are two types of reservations, which may, for the sake of convenience, be referred to as 'vertical reservations' and 'horizontal reservations'. They must be so applied as not to exceed the percentage of reservations which is permissible under law. This can be done by 'interlocking reservations'. His Lordship proceeded to state (SCCpp 735-36 para 812) “812……..There are two types of reservations, which may, for the sake of convenience, be referred to as 'vertical reservations' and 'horizontal reservations'. The reservations in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes [under Article 16(4)] may be called vertical reservations whereas reservations in favour of physically handicapped [under clause (1) of Article 16] can be referred to as horizontal reservations. Horizontal reservations cut across the vertical reservations what is called interlocking reservations. To be more precise, suppose 3% of the vacancies are reserved in favour of physically handicapped persons; this would be a reservation relatable to clause (1) of Article 16. The persons selected against this quota will be placed in the appropriate category; if he belongs to SC category he will be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustments; similarly, if he belongs to open competition (OC) category, he will be placed in that category by making necessary adjustments. Even after providing for these horizontal reservations, the percentage of reservations in favour of backward class of citizens remains and should remain the same. This is how these reservations are worked out in several States and there is no reason not to continue that procedure. 26. A similar question came up for consideration in Swati Gupta. There, the petitioner appeared in the Combined Pre-Medical Test (CPMT) held by the State. She was not selected. She challenged a notification of the State Government on the ground that the reservation was 65% which exceeded 50% and was thus violative of the constitutional guarantee under Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution as also the ratio laid down in Indra Sawhney (I). The Government of U.P., however, issued another notification clarifying its stand on reservations. 27. In the amended notification, it was clarified that the reservations for the candidates belonging to other categories, such as, dependents of freedom-fighters, sons/ daughters of deceased/disabled soldiers, physically handicapped candidates, etc. The Government of U.P., however, issued another notification clarifying its stand on reservations. 27. In the amended notification, it was clarified that the reservations for the candidates belonging to other categories, such as, dependents of freedom-fighters, sons/ daughters of deceased/disabled soldiers, physically handicapped candidates, etc. would be 'horizontal' and the candidates selected in those categories would be adjusted in the categories to which they 8 belong, i.e. either reserved category of Schedule Castes (SC), Schedule Tribes (ST), Other Backward Class (OBC) or Open Category (OC) in 'vertical' reservation and it would not violate constitutional guarantee. 28. The Court considered Indra Sawhney (I), applied it to the case on hand and held that the submission of the State was well founded and the contention of the petitioner that the reservation violated constitutional guarantee of 50% was not well-founded. The Court stated; (Swati Gupta case, SCC P. 563 para 3). “3…….The vertical reservation is now 50% for general category and 50% for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes. Reservation of 15% for various categories mentioned in the earlier circular which reduced the general category to 35% due to vertical reservation has now been made horizontal in the amended circular extending it to all seats. The reservation is no more in general category. The amended circular divides all the seats in CPMT into two categories one, general and other reserved. Both have been allocated 50%. Para 2 of the circular explains that candidates who are selected on merit and happen to be of the category mentioned in para 1 would be liable to be adjusted in general or reserved category depending on to which category they belong, such reservation is not contrary to what was said by this Court in Indra Sawhney. 29. A similar question was raised in Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors. vs. State of UP & Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 173 : JT 1995 (5) SC 505. Referring to Indra Sawhney (I), and Swati Gupta, the Court observed; 18. Now, coming to the correctness of the procedure prescribed by the revised notification for filling up the seats, it was wrong to direct the fifteen per cent special reservation seats to be filled up first and then take up the OC (merit) quota (followed by filling of OBC, SC and ST quotas). Now, coming to the correctness of the procedure prescribed by the revised notification for filling up the seats, it was wrong to direct the fifteen per cent special reservation seats to be filled up first and then take up the OC (merit) quota (followed by filling of OBC, SC and ST quotas). The proper and correct course is to first fill up the OC quota (50%) on the basis of merit; then fill up each of the social reservation quotas, i.e., SC, ST and BC; the third step would be to find out how many candidates belonging to special reservations have been selected on the above basis. If the quota fixed for horizontal reservations is already satisfied in case it is an overall horizontal reservation no further question arises. But if it is not so satisfied, the requisite 9 number of special reservation candidates shall have to be taken and adjusted/ accommodated against their respective social reservation categories by deleting the corresponding number of candidates therefrom. (If, however, it is a case of compartmentalized horizontal reservation, then the process of verification and adjustment/ accommodation as stated above should be applied separately to each of the vertical reservations. In such a case, the reservation of fifteen per cent in favour of special categories, overall, may be satisfied or may not be satisfied.) Because the revised notification provided for a different method of filling the seats, it has contributed partly to the unfortunate situation where the entire special reservation quota has been allocated and adjusted almost exclusively against the OC quota. 30. It is thus clear that the reservation for women candidates cannot be held invalid or in excess of permissible quota. In fact, reservation policy itself makes this position clear. A letter, dated February 26, 1999 referred to above and annexed as Annexure P1 is explicitly clear. Para 2 reads thus; Reservation will be of Horizontal nature i.e. if any Woman candidate selected on the basis of reservation on any category then she will be fixed of the said category. 12. The judgment referred to by the learned Sr. A letter, dated February 26, 1999 referred to above and annexed as Annexure P1 is explicitly clear. Para 2 reads thus; Reservation will be of Horizontal nature i.e. if any Woman candidate selected on the basis of reservation on any category then she will be fixed of the said category. 12. The judgment referred to by the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable in the present facts of the case as in case of Shiv Prasad (Supra) there were three posts and 20% reservation was provided for woman which comes to .6 i.e. more than .5 %, as such one posts was horizontally reserved for woman candidate whereas in the present case 30% of three posts comes to .9, it is round off to 1 it will cross the limit of 30% reservation for woman which is not permissible. The Public Service Commission has adopted uniform process of ignoring the fractions, otherwise if the fraction are round off to 1 then in all the categories the vacancies will be beyond the permissible limit of 30% of reservation that will dehore the Reservation Rules 1997. Thus, the action of the respondent not reserving any posts for OBC woman candidate cannot be said to be faulty which warrants interference by this Court. The rounding off the post will amount to crossing the reservation limit provided under Rule 1997 and is against the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case R.S. Garg vs. State of UP (2006) 6 SCC 430 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under in paragraph 34 to 40 as under:- 34. In terms of the 1994 Act, the reservation was to be confined to 21%. There were 6 posts. If the roster was to be followed, 2 posts would be reserved for the Scheduled Caste candidates, which is impermissible. 35. Mr. Dwivedi submitted that the post of Deputy Director of Factories (Engineering) would be forming separate cadre. We do not agree. It is not disputed that the said post has also been considered at par with the post of Deputy Director of Factories (Administration), as the qualification for holding the said post was the same. 36. In a case of this nature, the rule of strict construction is required to be applied and the action on the part of the State must be judged in terms thereof. 37. 36. In a case of this nature, the rule of strict construction is required to be applied and the action on the part of the State must be judged in terms thereof. 37. Equality clauses contained in Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India may in certain situations have to be considered as the basic structure/features of the Constitution of India. We do not mean to say that all violations of Article 14 or 16 would be violative of the basic features of the Constitution of India as adumbrated in Kesvananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala[ (1973) 4 SCC 225 : 1973 Supp. SCR 1]. But, it is trite that while a law is patently arbitrary, such infringement of the equality clause contained in Article 14 or Article 16 may be held to be violative of the basic structure of the Constitution. {See Waman Rao vs. Union of India [ (1981) 2 SCC 362 ], Maharao Saheb Shri Bhim Singhji, etc. vs. Union of India & Ors. [ AIR 1981 SC 234 ] and Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors [ (1980) 3 SCC 625 ].} A statute professing division amongst citizens, subject to Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India must pass the test of strict scrutiny. Article 15(4) and Article 16(4) profess to bring the socially and educationally backward people to the forefront. Only for the purpose of invoking equality clause, the makers of the Constitution thought of protective discrimination and affirmative action. Such recourse to protective discrimination and affirmative action had been thought of to do away with social disparities. So long as social disparities among groups of people are patent and one class of citizens in spite of best efforts cannot effectively avail equality of opportunity due to social and economic handicaps, the policy of affirmative action must receive the approval of the constitutional courts. For the said purpose, however, the qualifications laid down in the Constitution for the aforementioned purpose must be held to be the sine qua non. Thus, affirmative action in essence and spirit involves classification of people as backward class of citizens and those who are not backward class of citizens. For the said purpose, however, the qualifications laid down in the Constitution for the aforementioned purpose must be held to be the sine qua non. Thus, affirmative action in essence and spirit involves classification of people as backward class of citizens and those who are not backward class of citizens. A group of 11 persons although are not as such backward or by passage of time ceased to be so would come within the purview of the creamy layer doctrine evolved by this court. The court by evolving said doctrine intended to lay a law that in terms of our constitutional scheme no group of persons should be held to be more equal than the other group. In relation to the minorities, a 11-Judge Bench of this Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka [ (2002) 8 SCC 481 ] categorically held that protection is required to be given to the minority so as to apply the equality clauses to them vis-a-vis the majority. In Islamic Academy of Education vs. State of Karnataka [ (2003) 6 SCC 697 ], it was opined that the minority have more rights than the majority. To the said extent Islamic Academy of Education (supra) was overruled by a 7-Judge Bench of this Court in P.A. Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra [ (2005) 6 SCC 537 ]. 38. An executive action or a legislative Act should also be commensurate with the dicta laid down by this Court in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India[1992 Supp.2 SCR 454] (`Indra Sawhney-I') and followed in Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [ (1995) 5 SCC 403 ] and Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India[1999 Supp.5 SCR 229] ('Indra Sawhney- II'). 39. In Umadevi (Supra), the Constitution Bench referring to Kesavananda Bharati (supra), Indra Sawhney-I (supra) and Indra Sawhney-II (supra), opined: "These binding decisions are clear imperatives that adherence to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is a must in the process of public employment." 40. We are not concerned with the reasonableness or otherwise of the percentage of reservation. 21% of the posts have been reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates by the State itself. It, thus, cannot exceed the quota. It is not disputed that in the event of any conflict between the percentage of reservation and the roster, the former shall prevail. We are not concerned with the reasonableness or otherwise of the percentage of reservation. 21% of the posts have been reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates by the State itself. It, thus, cannot exceed the quota. It is not disputed that in the event of any conflict between the percentage of reservation and the roster, the former shall prevail. Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the roster to fill up the posts by reserved category candidates, after every four posts, in our considered opinion, does not meet the constitutional requirements. 14. This Court has also asked the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner what is the merit position of the petitioner. According to her, the petitioner stood at Sr. No. 29, as such, it is quite vivid that the petitioner does not find place in merit position, as such she has no locus standi to challenge the appointment of respondent No.3. 15. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. The interim order passed by this Court on 18.05.2016 is vacated. 16. Further considering the fact that how the respondent No. 3 can be granted equitable relief as he was deprived from last 7 years to work as Dy. Collector because of no fault of respondent No.3. Further taking into consideration that it is directed the respondent No.3 shall be given seniority from the date his next senior has been appointed on the post of Dy. Collector. The pay fixation and other service benefit be given to the respondent No.3 notionally. If the next senior to the respondent No. 3 has been promoted, the State shall consider the ACR of respondent No. 3, who is presently working as Assistant Commissioner, Excise for considering the case of the respondent No.3 for promotion as there was no fault of the respondent No.3. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to cost.