JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive relief:- “(i) That the present Original Application may very kindly be allowed and further the respondent Corporation may be directed to fill up the vacancies of Transport Multi Purpose Assistants strictly as per the Advertisement dated 03.08.2017 with the break up of vacancies as detailed in the corrigendum Annexure A-1. That the seats of General Category be filled up to the extent of 715 seats as advertised and in no case the said seats be allowed to be transferred to or be filled up from the other categories i.e. SC, ST and OBC.” 2. The respondent issued an advertisement dated 03.08.2017 thereby inviting applications of qualified candidates for filling up for 715 posts of Transport Multi Purpose Assistant (TMPA) of General Category, out of which 104 were to be filled up from General BPL, 13 from General FF, 117 from General Ex serviceman and 39 from sports. 3. The petitioner appeared in the written test and was shortlisted for valuation of documents. The petitioner secured 74 marks in the written test and 4.38 marks in the evaluation and in this way he secured 78.38 marks. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the seats of General Category have not been filled up as per the quota set out in the advertisement, rather the candidates belonging to other categories have occupied the seats meant for general category leaving the general category candidates in lurch. It is further averred that as against the advertised seats of 286 for SC Category, as many as 333 candidates have been selected. Likewise, for 163 post of OBC (General) nearly 286 candidates have been recruited, whereas for the general category, only 391 seats have been filled up against the allocated quota of 715 posts in total. 5. The respondent in its reply has averred that the candidates, who otherwise belonged to SC and OBC categories have their own merit being selected and are required to be considered as candidates in the general category in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., 1992 Suppl. The respondent in its reply has averred that the candidates, who otherwise belonged to SC and OBC categories have their own merit being selected and are required to be considered as candidates in the general category in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., 1992 Suppl. (3) SCC 217, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held “in this connection, it is well to remember that the reservation under Article 16(4) do not operate like a communal reservation. It may well happen that the members belonging to, say Scheduled Caste get selected in the open competition field on the basis of their own merit; they will not be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes; they will be treated as open competition candidates.” 6. When the matter came up before the Coordinate Bench on 10.11.2023, the Court passed the following order:- “Reply stands filed. Rejoinder thereto also stands filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that ground taken in the petition in para 6 (f) is specific in nature, whereas vague reply has been filed thereto and, therefore, it has to be considered that respondent has no ground to repel the ground taken in the said para. Faced with aforesaid situation, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation seeks one opportunity to file supplementary affidavit to place on record specific response to the aforesaid para by giving specific reply. Accepting his prayer, two weeks time, as prayed, is granted.” 7. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the respondent has filed supplementary affidavit, wherein the break-up of the following different categories has been given as under:- Sr. No. Category No. of advertised posts 1. General 442 2. General BPL 104 3. General FF 13 4. General Ex. Man 117 5. General Sportsman 39 Total 715 8. It is averred that total 442 posts were to be filled up against open category, which were filled up as per instructions contained in para-4 of the Notification No. PER (AP) C-F-2/2001, dated 12.11.2014, which reads as under:- "In this context it is clarified that there is no own merit concept for the candidates competing under horizontal reservation. It is averred that total 442 posts were to be filled up against open category, which were filled up as per instructions contained in para-4 of the Notification No. PER (AP) C-F-2/2001, dated 12.11.2014, which reads as under:- "In this context it is clarified that there is no own merit concept for the candidates competing under horizontal reservation. The candidates belonging to reserved categories falling under horizontal reservation i.e. Ex-Servicemen/ Ward of Ex-Servicemen, Ward of Freedom Fighters, Persons with Disabilities, Distinguished Sports persons and Antodaya/ B.P.L. who acquire merit/ marks at par with purely general candidates shall not be selected/ appointment against general/ unreserved posts and will be adjusted against the post reserved for respective category falling under horizontal reservation. However, this provision does not debar or preclude a candidate falling under vertical/ horizontal reservation from applying and competing for any unreserved post subject to his/her eligibility and clearing the written test/interview successfully without any relaxation." 9. It is further reiterated that the respondent has filled up the posts bearing in mind the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney' case (supra). 10. Lastly, it has been averred that on the basis of the merit 159 posts acquired by General Category candidates, 89 posts acquired by General BPL Category candidates, 2 posts acquired by General-Sports Category candidates, 50 posts acquired by OB Category candidates, 30 posts acquired by OBC-BPL Category candidates, 55 posts acquired by SC Category Candidates, 37 posts acquired by SC -BPL Category candidates, 2 posts acquired by SC Sports Category candidates, 11 posts acquired by ST Category candidates and 7 posts acquired by ST-BPL Category candidates, from the entire pool of the candidates considered in the general category out of the total of 442 posts reserved for such category. 11. The petitioner has filed counter affidavit (termed to be reply) wherein it is averred that in terms of the Notification dated 12.11.2014 issued by the respondent, the posts reserved for the general category could not have been filled up by applying horizontal reservation for the categories like BPL, disable, sportsman etc. and were required to be strictly filled up from the general category. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record. 12. and were required to be strictly filled up from the general category. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record. 12. At the outset, the Court is required to take into consideration the instructions on the subject that were issued by the State Government on 12.11.2014, in terms whereof, the candidate competing horizontal reservation and belonging to the reserved category i.e. ex-serviceman/wards of ex-serviceman, wards of freedom fighter, persons with disability, distinguished sports person and Antodhaya/BPL, who acquired merit/marks at par with the purely general candidates cannot be selected/appointed against the general/unreserved posts and will have to be adjusted against the posts reserved for their respective categories falling under horizontal reservation. However, this provision does not debar or preclude a candidate falling under verticle/horizontal reservation for applying and competing for any unreserved posts subject to his/her eligibility and clearing the written test/interview successfully without any relaxation. 13. Once that be so, obviously those of the candidates who belong to the categories other than the general category, were well within their rights to compete with all the other candidates including the general category candidate and once they had not claimed any relaxation by way of reservation, be it verticle or horizontal, they were required to be placed in the merit considered against the general category candidate in accordance with the merit so drawn. 14. Even otherwise, it is well established principle that a candidate belonging to any of the verticle reservation category, on the basis of his/her own merit, he/she is entitled to be selected in the open or general category and in such eventuality the selection is not to be counted against the quota reserved for such verticle reservation category. 15. We may for the sake of clarity reproduce the following extract from the decision of Ritesh R. Sah vs. Dr. Y.L. Yamul & Ors. (1996) 3 SCC 253 , which noted the decision of the Constitutional Bench in Indira Sawhney's case (supra) and larger Bench decision in R.K. Sabarwal vs. State of Punjab 1992 (2) SCC 745 and observed as under:- “13. Y.L. Yamul & Ors. (1996) 3 SCC 253 , which noted the decision of the Constitutional Bench in Indira Sawhney's case (supra) and larger Bench decision in R.K. Sabarwal vs. State of Punjab 1992 (2) SCC 745 and observed as under:- “13. There cannot be any dispute with the proposition that if a candidate is entitled to be admitted on the basis of his own merit then such admission should not be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or any other reserved category since that will be against the Constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 16(4). 14. In a case Indra Sawhney & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (1992 Suppl. (3) SCC 217), commonly known as Mandal's case, this Court in paragraph 811 held thus:- "In this connection it is well to remember that the reservations under Article 16(4) do not operate like a communal reservation. It may well happen that some members belonging to. say, Scheduled Castes get selected in the open competition field on the basis of their own merit; they will not be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes; they will be treated as open competition candidates." 15. In R.K. Sabharwal vs. State of Punjab (1995) 2 SCC 745 the Constitution Bench of this Court considered the question of appointment and promotion and roster points vis a vis reservation and held thus:- "When a percentage of reservation is fixed in respect of a particular cadre and the roster indicates the reverse points, it has to be taken that the posts shown at the reserve points are to be filled from amongst the members of reserve categories and the candidates belonging to the general category are not entitled to be considered for the reserved posts. On the other hand the reserve category candidates can compete for the non-reserve posts and in the event of their appointment to the said posts their number cannot be added and taken into consideration for working out the percentage of reservation. Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India permits the State Government to make and provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any Backward Class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State if not adequately represented in the Services under the State. Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India permits the State Government to make and provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any Backward Class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State if not adequately represented in the Services under the State. It is, therefore, incumbent on the State Government to reach a conclusion that the Backward Class/Classes for which the reservation is made is not adequately represented in the State Services. While doing so the State Government may take the total population of a particular Backward Class and its representation in the State Services. When the State Government after doing the necessary exercise make the reservation and provides the extent of percentage of posts to be reserved for the said Backward Class then the percentage has to be followed strictly. The prescribed percentage cannot be varied or changed simply because some of the members of the Backward Class have already been appointed/promoted against the general seats. As mentioned above the roster point which is reserved for a Backward Class has to be filled by way of appointment/promotion of the member of the said class. No general category candidate can be appointed against a slot in the roster which is reserved for the Backward Class. The fact that considerable number of members of a Backward Class have been appointed/promoted against general seats in the State Services may be a relevant factor for the State Government to review the question of continuing reservation for the said class but so long as the instructions/rules providing certain percentage of reservations for the backward Classes are operative the same have to be followed. Despite any number of appointees/promotees belonging to the Backward Classes against the general category posts the given percentage has to be provided in addition." 16. In Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan [(1995) 6 SSC 684 at 705] it has been held that While determining the number of posts reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the candidates belonging to reserved category but selected/promoted on the rule of merit Land not by virtue of rule of reservation] shall not be counted as reserved category candidates. 16. At this stage, it shall be apposite to make note of another judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 16. At this stage, it shall be apposite to make note of another judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2021) 4 SCC 680 , wherein 295 additional posts of Constables were made available and the question arose whether in the reworking exercise, the reserved category candidates were entitled to be considered against open category and whether such exercise could be termed to be invalid or illegal. 17. Answering the said contention, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- 7. The process adopted by the State Government as is discernable from the affidavit of compliance shows that List-I dealt with the candidates selected in ‘Open Category’ while Lists II, III and IV pertained to the candidates selected in ‘OBC/SC/ST categories’ respectively. List-I comprised of two kinds of candidates. First, those who were initially selected in their respective vertical reserved categories (OBC/SC/ST), but depending on their merit, were found entitled to be put in ‘Open Category’; and secondly, new candidates who were selected on the basis of their merit in various categories. Break up of 1906 candidates who were considered in ‘Open Category’ was thus clearly set out. 8. It is not the grievance of the petitioners that any candidate who had secured marks lesser than the petitioners, has been selected. The challenge is to the shifting of candidates, who were earlier selected against posts meant for reserved categories, to the open category. 9. Selection in respect of 3295 posts was undertaken in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in Ashish Kumar Yadav and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. 2019 SCC Online SC 1968 and the State Government and its functionaries were obliged to go strictly in order of merit and apply the principle of reservation. With the availability of 3295 additional posts, in the re-working exercise, if the candidates who were already selected against reserved posts were entitled to be considered against open category posts, that exercise cannot be termed as illegal or invalid on any count. These 3295 posts were part of the same selection process initiated in 2013 for filling up 41610 posts and as such the adjustment was rightly done by the State. 18. These 3295 posts were part of the same selection process initiated in 2013 for filling up 41610 posts and as such the adjustment was rightly done by the State. 18. Since the issue in question is no longer res integra and the legal position is otherwise well settled as noted above, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.