Order : 1. The appeal has been filed assailing the order passed by learned Single Judge dated 13.01.2023. The learned counsel submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in denying the relief claimed by them of being considered along with other open category candidates and outstaying those reserved candidates who had already taken advantage of participating in the draw of lots in any category of SC/ST/OBC. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the decision taken by the State Government dated 29.05.2018 was only erroneous resulting in giving duly benefit to the SC/ST/OBC and SBC for which first lottery was taken up of the applicants. The order dated 29.05.2018 allows those candidates who were left out from selection in the lottery conducted for them to be included again in general category. Learned counsel submits that once applicants had taken advantage for being belonging to SC/ST/OBC/SBC, they cannot again turn around and count in the open category. Moreso, they have taken the necessary relaxation which can be available to such category candidates. 3. Learned counsel has submitted that the judgment passed by the Division Bench in Virendra Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. ( D.B. Spl. Appeal Writ No. 1733/2018 ) was applicable to the facts of the present case. However, the learned Single Judge has erred in not examining the same in the true perspective. 4. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the principle underlying selection is that of the category persons who should belong to general category which would include SC/ST/OBC/SBC candidates who have not taken any benefit of the relaxation therefore, the decision taken by the respondents in their letter dated 29.05.2018 cannot be said to be erroneous. Learned counsel has submitted that it is not the case of the appellants that they had not been considered in draw of lots open category once they have been included in the lot relating to general category were not successful. Merely reserved category have been included, the claim of the appellants cannot be considered. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the facts of the case. 6. Merely reserved category have been included, the claim of the appellants cannot be considered. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the facts of the case. 6. On 29.05.2018, the State Government laid down the following guidelines for the purpose of selection of Safai Karamchari in the various municipalities which reads as under:- ^^vuqlwfpr tkfr] vuqlwpfr tu tkfr] vU; fiNMk+ oxZ ,oa vfr fiNMk oxZ ds vkosndksa dh ykVjh loZizFke fudkyh tkosa ,oa ykVjh esa p;fur vH;kfFkZ;ksa dks i`Fkd djrs gq, lkekU; oxZ dh ykVjh esa vuqlwfpr tkfr] vuqlwfpr tu tkfr] vU; fiNMk oxZ ,oa vfr fiNMk oxZ ds 'ks"k jgs vkosnu i=ksa dks lkekU; oxZ dh uksVjh esa 'kkfey fd;k tkosA^^ 7. The factual matrix reflects that so far as the appellants are concerned although they belong to the Scheduled Caste category, had applied under general category. Their names were included in the general category and when the lottery for general category candidates was conducted, their names were included. The only aspect which requires to be considered is whether at that time there was a drawing of lots available from general category candidates. Those candidates who had already participated in the draw of lots under the SC/ST/OBC/SBC category and fail to be successful could be again considered under the general category lottery. 8. In Saurav Yadav vs. State of U.P and Ors., 2021 (4) SCC 542, the Supreme Court has laid down a criteria as to how thus, if selections are to be conducted first list which is to be prepared is of open category namely the general category in that category all the candidates belonging to any of the caste, any of the category namely SC/ST/OBC/SBC would be considered along with other category and as per the merit selections are to be done where after the selection for specific categories namely SC/ST/OBC/SBC would be conducted. 9. However, aforesaid aspect would have no application in case where selections are based on lottery basis. For the purpose of appointing Safai Karamchari, if the State Government has issued the order (supra) which requires lotteries to be conducted for the specific categories firstly and the open general category lottery to be conducted at the last any objection can be made to such procedure being adopted. For the purpose of appointing Safai Karamchari, if the State Government has issued the order (supra) which requires lotteries to be conducted for the specific categories firstly and the open general category lottery to be conducted at the last any objection can be made to such procedure being adopted. However, when the general category draw lots is to be done only those SC/ST/OBC/SBC category candidates while those who have not taken any concessional benefit can be included for draw of lots for SC/ST/OBC/SBC respectively they would not be included, they would also be included in the general category. 10. We find that when draw of lots for general category was conducted, such an exercise has not been done in Virendra Kumar’s Case (supra), the Division Bench has therefore directed that a fresh select list based upon a new draw of lots ought to be conducted solely amongst all eligible candidates excluding those reserved category candidates who have availed relaxation benefit or any other concessional benefits. We therefore, find that inclusion of SC/ST/OBC/SBC category candidates in the draw of lots those conducting for general category shall be unjustified by the Court. 11. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified to the aforesaid extent directing the respondents to take steps for preparing a fresh select list of open general category candidates by conducting draw of lots including all candidates for general category like the appellants and also those SC/ST/OBC/SBC candidates who have not taken any relaxation of any kind including age relaxation. The observation of learned Single Judge that only such candidates were allowed does not find any basis on the facts of the case. 12. We therefore, accordingly direct as above. The exercise shall be now concluded within a period of three months. The appellants, if find place in the draw of lots, they would get consequential benefit. Those candidates who have already joined and are working shall not be disturbed unless their names are outstayed in the subsequent select list. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 14. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.