JUDGMENT: Ravi Nath Tilhari, J. Heard Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R. S. Manidhar Pingali, learned Government Pleader for Services-I and Sri N. Pramod, learned Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission. 2. The aforesaid three writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arise out of the order, dated 15.03.2012 passed in O.A.No.3556 of 2010 and Contempt Application No.782 of 2010 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (in short ‘Tribunal’), filed by the applicant, the 1 st respondent in W.P.No.24591 of 2012 and W.P.No.17319 of 2012 and the petitioner in W.P.No.16265 of 2014. He would be referred as the applicant. 3. The Tribunal allowed the O.A with directions and also closed the Contempt Application. A. Facts - I : 4. The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (in short ‘APPSC’) issued notification No.23 of 2007 inviting applications from the eligible candidates to fill up 22 posts of Assistant Conservator of Forests (in short ‘ACF’). Out of 22 vacancies, so notified six (6) vacancies were earmarked for OC General and four (4) for OC women candidates. 5. The applicant K.Suresh Kumar appeared in the selection process. He secured 409 marks, out of 660 marks, in the merit list of OC/ General category. The APPSC published the final list of selected candidates, vide notification dated 25.05.2010. Applicant’s name did not figure in the list of the selected candidates. 6. The APPSC selected three (03) women OC candidates, contending that they were selected on their own merit. The APPSC also selected four women candidates under reservation quota of 331/3% in OC/ General category. Thus, in total, out of 10 vacancies, 7 OC women were selected. The applicant was informed that after filling up the reserved vacancies for women i.e., 4, there were only 6 vacancies left and as the applicant secured 9 th position, he could not be selected. 7. The procedure, adopted by the APPSC, to select 7 women against 10 vacancies of OC/General was that the APPSC firstly filled the six (6) vacancies as per the merit of the candidates, including women and men. 7. The procedure, adopted by the APPSC, to select 7 women against 10 vacancies of OC/General was that the APPSC firstly filled the six (6) vacancies as per the merit of the candidates, including women and men. Then, it filled the remaining four (4), earmarked for reservation quota for women of 331/3%, exclusively from the remaining women candidates, as per the merit inter se i.e., excluding those three (3) women candidates, who had been selected on their merit position amongst six (6) selected candidates. To put it differently the APPSC applied the rule of ‘vertical reservation’. II. O.A.No.3556 of 2010 before the Tribunal: 8. The applicant filed O.A.No.3556 of 2010 challenging his non-selection against the 10 OC/General vacancies raising the plea inter alia that he got 9 th rank. His case was that he secured 409 marks out of 660. He was at serial No.9. The procedure for selection, if it was followed by giving horizontal reservation to women candidates, under 331/3% reservation, only four (04) women could be selected in OC category. The other three (03) selected women candidates secured marks less than the applicant. So, the case of the applicant was that if procedure followed was according to law, the applicant would have been selected. 9. The State of AP and its authority (respondent Nos.1 & 2 in O.A.) filed the counter affidavit in O.A., They submitted that as per the notification, 22 posts were to be filled up, against which, 20 selected candidates had joined. One post was not filled up by ST vacancy for want of ST certificate verification by the District Collector and the remaining one candidate Sri K.Vinod Kumar (BC-D) though selected, did not join and as such, his appointment was cancelled, and the roster point No.93 (BC-D) was carried forward to the next recruitment. 10. The APPSC/ 3rd respondent in O.A., also filed counter, inter-alia stating that, the last selected candidate in OC/General had secured 424 marks. Therefore, the applicant could not be selected to any of the (6) OC/General vacancies due to his lower merit. The stand of the APPSC was that the OC vacancies were open to all irrespective of community or gender, and those vacancies were filled strictly as per merit. Therefore, the applicant could not be selected to any of the (6) OC/General vacancies due to his lower merit. The stand of the APPSC was that the OC vacancies were open to all irrespective of community or gender, and those vacancies were filled strictly as per merit. Their stand was that there were six (06) OC/general vacancies, out of 10 OC vacancies, as 4 vacancies fell under 331/3% for women, to be filled exclusively by the women candidates. Their contention was that the reservation for women was both horizontal and vertical. The contention was that out of the OC/General, the women candidates on their own merit would be given first, against 6, and then 4, as per 331/3% shall be filled exclusively by women candidates. Out of six (6), OC, three (3) women candidates were selected on merit. They also referred to Rule 22 (e) of the Andhra Pradesh State & Subordinate Service Rules (in short ‘the Rules’), for the order of roster, in the unit of hundred vacancies. III. Tribunal’s interim directions: 11. It deserves mention at this stage that the Tribunal, initially granted interim order, dated 16.06.2010 in the O.A.No.3556 of 2010, directing the State not to fill up one post of Assistant Conservator of Forest in the ‘OC’ category. The interim order reads as under: “Admit. Issue notice to the respondents returnable in four weeks. Pending disposal of the O.A., the respondents are directed not to fill up one post of Assistant Conservator of Forest in the ‘OC’ category.” 12. However, the State and APPSC filled that post by a woman candidate by name G.A.P. Prasuna/respondent No.8 in W.P.No.16265 of 2013, who had secured 392 marks. In the counter affidavit, dated 19.08.2010, it was stated that the selections were already finalized and communicated to the Unit Officer on 10.06.2010 before passing the interim order. The APPSC then filed additional counter affidavit on 12.09.2011, that on 10.06.2010 the selection list consisting of 21 candidates was communicated to the Unit Officer. The selection of a candidate by name G.A.P. Prasuna, was however, withheld on consideration that she was pregnant and would be appointed at a later date, after qualifying the medical tests prescribed for the recruitment. It was further stated in the said additional counter affidavit that later she was appointed after qualifying in the tests. IV. Contempt Application: 13. The applicant, therefore, filed Contempt Application No.782 of 2010. It was further stated in the said additional counter affidavit that later she was appointed after qualifying in the tests. IV. Contempt Application: 13. The applicant, therefore, filed Contempt Application No.782 of 2010. V. Tribunal’s final judgment, dated 15.03.2012: 14. The Tribunal did not accept the contention of the State and APPSC. It held that the procedure adopted by the APPSC was contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Indra Sawhney V. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477 and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in K.Venkatesh and another V. Government of A.P., Home (Courts.C1) Department & Others, [ 2009 (6) ALT 483 (D.B)], which Division Bench had considered the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria V. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Others, (2007) 8 SCC 785 ]. The Tribunal took the view that the principle adopted and followed by APPSC in the matter of selection to the vacancies earmarked i.e., 4 posts (331/3%) under OC segment could not be approved. The procedure of following roster points shall not overrule the substantive provision. Thus, excess women candidates were selected. Non-selection of the applicant was held bad under law. 15. The Tribunal, allowed the O.A., however, without disturbing the selected women candidates. Since, one vacancy of BC-D had not been filled, as was the case of the State/ respondent in their counter before the Tribunal, the State and the APPSC were directed to adjust the applicant against that vacancy of (BC-D), providing further that one vacancy from the women category be suppressed in the future notification and made good for BC-D post. 16. The Contempt Application was also closed, thus on 15.03.2012, in view of the directions given. 17. It deserves mention that the Tribunal passed the judgment for the adjustment of the applicant, as by the time, the judgment was given, on 15.03.2012, there was vacancy in BC-D post. In the additional counter affidavit of APPSC filed in O.A., it was stated that one BC-D selected candidate Sri K.Vinod Kumar failed to join duty; so his name was deleted from the merit list and as per rule such vacancy was to be notified in the subsequent recruitment. 18. In the additional counter affidavit of APPSC filed in O.A., it was stated that one BC-D selected candidate Sri K.Vinod Kumar failed to join duty; so his name was deleted from the merit list and as per rule such vacancy was to be notified in the subsequent recruitment. 18. In W.P.No.24591 of 2012 filed by Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, as per paragraph-16, the aforesaid vacancy of BC-D was carried forward to subsequent recruitment, vide notification No.21 of 2011, dated 22.12.2011. The written Test was conducted on 08.4.2012 and the result was declared on 03.05.2012. 19. The date of the judgment of the Tribunal is 15.03.2012. So, it is evident from the own case of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission that by the time, the Tribunal directed to adjust the applicant against the vacant post of BC-D, the same had not been filled in the subsequent recruitment. VI. Prayers in Writ Petitions: 20. 19. The date of the judgment of the Tribunal is 15.03.2012. So, it is evident from the own case of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission that by the time, the Tribunal directed to adjust the applicant against the vacant post of BC-D, the same had not been filled in the subsequent recruitment. VI. Prayers in Writ Petitions: 20. Challenging the order, dated 15.03.2012, W.P.No.17319 of 2012 has been filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh, W.P.No.24591 of 2012 has been filed by the APPSC and W.P.No.16265 of 2013 has been filed by the applicant as well, for the following reliefs: W.P.No.17319 of 2012 by State of Andhra Pradesh “to issue appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with orders dated 15.03.2012 in 0.A.No.3556/2010 and to quash or set aside the same by holding the same as erroneous in excess of jurisdiction unconstitutional and contrary to law and to pass such order or orders as this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case …” W.P.No.24591 of 2012 by APPSC “to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records thereto and connected with the order of the Hon’ble A P Administrative Tribunal dated 15/03/2012 in 0.A.No.3556/2010 and quash the same as contrary to law and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.…” W.P.No.16265 of 2014 by Applicant in O.A. “to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or Writs Order or Direction to call for the records pertaining to the Order dated 15.03.2012 passed in 0.A.No.3556 of 2010 by Hon’ble A P Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad and declare the same as illegal in so far as it directs the official respondents to appoint the petitioner against BCD vacancy notified in Notification No.23/2007 issued by third respondent and to consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith appoint the petitioner herein against O C vacancy arising under Notification No.23/2007 issued by third respondent by setting aside the appointments of Respondent Nos.4, 5, 6 and 8 herein to the posts of Asst Conservator of Forests or in the alternative Issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Writ or Writs Order or Direction directing the Respondents to forthwith appoint the petitioner against BC-D vacancy notified vide Notification No.23/2007 issued by third respondent herein which was subsequently re notified vide Notification No.21/2011 issued by third respondent by setting aside the appointment of 7 th Respondent herein to the post of Asst Conservator of Forests Award costs.…” VII. Interim Order, dated14.06.2012 in W.P.No.17319 of 2012: 21. The State of Andhra Pradesh filed WPMP No.22179 in W.P.No.17319 of 2012 seeking suspension of the Order dated 15.03.2012 in O.A.No.3556 of 2010 passed by the Tribunal. This Court, by Order dated 14.06.2012, passed the following interim order: “There shall be interim suspension as prayed for.” B. Submissions of the learned counsels: 22. Sri Nemali Pramod, learned Standing Counsel for APPSC submitted that excluding 4 posts reserved for women under 331/3% reservation, there remained only 6 posts, out of 10 posts for OC/General. The applicant was in the merit at serial No.9 and there being only 6 posts as aforesaid, he could not be selected. The Tribunal committed illegality in allowing the O.A., and issuing the direction, to adjust the applicant against the one post belonging to BC-D, which direction he submitted, is also not justified. He submitted that one vacancy in BC-D post, occurred as the selected candidate namely K.Vinod Kumar, did not join. His appointment was cancelled and that vacancy was carried forward to the next recruitment, for which, the notification was issued and the result was declared. So, no direction could be issued in favour of the applicant against the post of BC-D. 23. Learned Government Pleader adopted the arguments advanced by Sri Nemali Pramod, learned Standing Counsel for APPSC. 24. Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is no illegality in the order of the Tribunal. He submitted that the procedure followed by the APPSC for the selection of 7 women candidates, out of 10 vacancies of OC/General was contrary to the settled law. He submitted that there was no fault of the applicant and he could not be penalized. The women candidates lower in the merit than the applicant have been given appointment, in excess of their quota of 4 posts i.e., 331/3%. 25. Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that if pursuant to the interim order, dated 16.06.2010 passed in O.A., one vacancy in OC/General, had been kept vacant and not filled by the woman candidate, who had lesser marks than the applicant, at the time of final judgment, the applicant would have been given that post of OC category to which the applicant belonged. But, in view of the action of the State and APPSC in filling that vacancy, contrary to the interim order, the Tribunal instead of directing the applicant to be adjusted in OC category after setting aside the appointment of the women candidates lower in merit than the applicant, moulded the relief and directed the applicant’s appointment in BC-D post with further direction. So, there is no illegality in the order of the Tribunal. He further submitted that even after the judgment of the Tribunal, to defeat the right of the applicant, the APPSC and the State filed writ petitions challenging the order of the Tribunal that BC-D post cannot be given to the applicant. Consequently, the applicant had to file writ petition to challenge that judgment of the Tribunal to appoint the applicant against OC vacancy under the same notification No.23/2007 by setting aside the appointment of the women candidates lower in merit than the applicant selected in excess of their reservation quota. He submitted that the applicant has filed the writ petition also with alternative prayer to give appointment against BC-D post, in terms of the judgment of the Tribunal, if the appointment given to the women candidate is not to be interfered. 26. None appeared to argue on behalf of Ms. Praveena, Naga Muneeswari and Sujatha, the selected woman candidates and given appointment, who secured lesser marks than the applicant, and made respondents in all the three writ petitions. 27. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record. C. Points for determination: 28. The points that arise for our consideration and determination are as follows: (i) Whether the reservation in case of women applies horizontally? (ii) Whether the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission and State of Andhra Pradesh went wrong in adopting the procedure, as adopted, and thereby denied the selection and appointment to the applicant? (iii) Whether the judgment of the Tribunal is legal and valid or it calls for our interference? D. Consideration: POINTS No.(i) & (ii): 29. The facts are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that if the reservation in favour of women was applied horizontally and not vertically, the applicant, who was at serial No.9 of the merit of OC/General including men and women candidates, would have been selected against 10 vacancies. 30. D. Consideration: POINTS No.(i) & (ii): 29. The facts are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that if the reservation in favour of women was applied horizontally and not vertically, the applicant, who was at serial No.9 of the merit of OC/General including men and women candidates, would have been selected against 10 vacancies. 30. The moot question is, reservation in favour of women, is to be applied “vertically” or “horizontally” and the manner of its application? 31. The law is well settled. In Indra Sawhney (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court in para-812 held as under: “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 the 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." 32. In Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra), the appellant therein and others in the connected appeal, were OBC candidates. They were not selected. Their case was that the women candidates were selected in excess of their reserved quota, contrary to the Rules. They contended that though the Rules provided for horizontal reservation of 20% for women category wise, Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC), while preparing the selection list, had wrongly applied the principles of vertical reservation and had selected women in excess of the quota, thereby denying selection to the appellants and other male candidates. They contended that though the Rules provided for horizontal reservation of 20% for women category wise, Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC), while preparing the selection list, had wrongly applied the principles of vertical reservation and had selected women in excess of the quota, thereby denying selection to the appellants and other male candidates. It was also contended that those appellants had secured higher marks than the selected woman candidates. But, for the excess selection of woman candidates, they would have been selected. 33. In Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra), the question was “whether the reservation provision regarding to woman had been correctly applied?”. 34. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra) referred to the nature of the horizontal reservation and the manner of its application. It referred to Indra Sawhney (supra), on the principle of horizontal reservation. It also referred to the case of Anil Kumar Gupta V. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1995) 5 SCC 173 and observed that a provision for women made under Article 15(3), in respect of employment, is a special reservation as contrasted from the social reservation under Article 16(4), and explained that the method of implementing special reservation, is a horizontal reservation, cutting across vertical reservations, as in Anil Kumar (supra). 35. Explaining the difference between the nature of vertical reservation and horizontal reservation, the Apex Court observed that the social reservations in favour of SC, ST and OBC under Article 16(4) are “vertical reservations”. Special reservations in favour of physically handicapped, women, etc., under Articles 16(1) or 15(3) are "horizontal reservations". Where a vertical reservation is made in favour of a Backward Class under Article 16(4), the candidates belonging to such Backward Class, may compete for non-reserved posts and if they are appointed to the non-reserved posts on their own merit, their number will not be counted against the quota reserved for respective Backward Class. Therefore, if the number of SC candidates, who by their own merit, get selected to open competition vacancies, equals or even exceeds the percentage of posts reserved for SC candidates, it cannot be said that the reservation quota for SCs has been filled. The entire reservation quota will be intact and available in addition to those selected under open competition category. 36. The entire reservation quota will be intact and available in addition to those selected under open competition category. 36. The Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that where a special reservation for women is provided within the social reservation for Scheduled Castes, the proper procedure is first to fill up the quota for Scheduled Castes in order of merit and then find out the number of candidates among them who belong to the special reservation group of "Scheduled Caste women". If the number of women in such list is equal to or more than the number of special reservation quota, then there is no need for further selection towards the special reservation quota. Only if there is any shortfall, the requisite number of Scheduled Caste women shall have to be taken by deleting the corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of the list relating to Scheduled Castes. It was emphasized that to this extent, horizontal (special) reservation differs from vertical (social) reservation. Thus, women selected on merit within the vertical reservation quota will be counted against the horizontal reservation for women. 37. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra) also illustrated the decision by giving an example, that if 19 posts are reserved for SCs (of which the quota for women is four), 19 SC candidates shall have to be first listed in accordance with merit, from out of the successful eligible candidates. If such list of 19 candidates contains four SC woman candidates, then there is no need to disturb the list by including any further SC woman candidate. On the other hand, if the list of 19 SC candidates contains only two women candidates, then the next two SC woman candidates in accordance with merit, will have to be included in the list and corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of such list shall have to be deleted, so as to ensure that the final 19 selected SC candidates contain four women SC candidates. But if the list of 19 SC candidates contains more than four women candidates, selected on own merit, all of them will continue in the list and there is no question of deleting the excess woman candidates on the ground that “SC women” have been selected in excess of the prescribed internal quota of four. 38. But if the list of 19 SC candidates contains more than four women candidates, selected on own merit, all of them will continue in the list and there is no question of deleting the excess woman candidates on the ground that “SC women” have been selected in excess of the prescribed internal quota of four. 38. In Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra), the number of candidates to be selected under general category (open competition), were 59, out of which 11 were earmarked for women. When the first 59 from among the 261 successful candidates were taken and listed as per merit, it contained 11 women candidates, which was equal to the quota for "general category women". It was observed that, there was thus no need for any further selection of woman candidates under the special reservation for women. But, what RPSC did was to take only the first 48 candidates in the order of merit (which contained 11 women) and thereafter, filled the next 11 posts under the general category only with woman candidates. As a result, among 59 general category candidates in all 22 women had been selected consisting of eleven women candidates selected on their own merit and another eleven included under reservation quota for "general category women". The Hon’ble Apex Court held that this was clearly impermissible. The process of selections made by RPSC amounted to treating the 20% reservation for women as a vertical reservation, instead of being a horizontal reservation within the vertical reservation. 39. Paras 9 & 10 of Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra), are as follows:- “9....The second relates to the difference between the nature of vertical reservation and horizontal reservation. Social reservations in favour of SC, ST and OBC under Article 16(4) are 'vertical reservations'. Special reservations in favour of physically handicapped, women etc., under Articles 16(1) or 15(3) are 'horizontal reservations'. Where a vertical reservation is made in favour of a backward class under Article 16(4), the candidates belonging to such backward class, may compete for non-reserved posts and if they are appointed to the non- reserved posts on their own merit, their numbers will not be counted against the quota reserved for the respective backward class. Where a vertical reservation is made in favour of a backward class under Article 16(4), the candidates belonging to such backward class, may compete for non-reserved posts and if they are appointed to the non- reserved posts on their own merit, their numbers will not be counted against the quota reserved for the respective backward class. Therefore, if the number of SC candidates, who by their own merit, get selected to open competition vacancies, equals or even exceeds the percentage of posts reserved for SC candidates, it cannot be said the reservation quota for SCs has been filled. The entire reservation quota will be intact and available in addition to those selected under Open Competition category. [Vide - Indira Sawhney (Supra), R. K. Sabharwal vs. State of Punjab ( 1995 (2) SCC 745 ), Union of India vs. Virpal Singh Chauvan ( 1995 (6) SCC 684 and Ritesh R. Sah vs. Dr. Y. L. Yamul ( 1996 (3) SCC 253 )]. But the aforesaid principle applicable to vertical (social) reservations will not apply to horizontal (special) reservations. Where a special reservation for women is provided within the social reservation for Scheduled Castes, the proper procedure is first to fill up the quota for scheduled castes in order of merit and then find out the number of candidates among them who belong to the special reservation group of 'Scheduled Castes-Women'. If the number of women in such list is equal to or more than the number of special reservation quota, then there is no need for further selection towards the special reservation quota. Only if there is any shortfall, the requisite number of scheduled caste women shall have to be taken by deleting the corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of the list relating to Scheduled Castes. To this extent, horizontal (special) reservation differs from vertical (social) reservation. Thus women selected on merit within the vertical reservation quota will be counted against the horizontal reservation for women. Let us illustrate by an example: If 19 posts are reserved for SCs (of which the quota for women is four), 19 SC candidates shall have to be first listed in accordance with merit, from out of the successful eligible candidates. If such list of 19 candidates contains four SC women candidates, then there is no need to disturb the list by including any further SC women candidate. If such list of 19 candidates contains four SC women candidates, then there is no need to disturb the list by including any further SC women candidate. On the other hand, if the list of 19 SC candidates contains only two woman candidates, then the next two SC woman candidates in accordance with merit, will have to be included in the list and corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of such list shall have to be deleted, so as to ensure that the final 19 selected SC candidates contain four women SC candidates. [But if the list of 19 SC candidates contains more than four women candidates, selected on own merit, all of them will continue in the list and there is no question of deleting the excess women candidate on the ground that 'SC-women' have been selected in excess of the prescribed internal quota of four.] 10. In this case, the number of candidates to be selected under general category (open competition), were 59, out of which 11 were earmarked for women. When the first 59 from among the 261 successful candidates were taken and listed as per merit, it contained 11 women candidates, which was equal to the quota for 'General Category - Women'. There was thus no need for any further selection of woman candidates under the special reservation for women. But what RPSC did was to take only the first 48 candidates in the order of merit (which contained 11 women) and thereafter, fill the next 11 posts under the general category with woman candidates. As a result, we find that among 59 general category candidates in all 22 women have been selected consisting of eleven women candidates selected on their own merit (candidates at Sl.Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 19, 21, 25, 31, 35 & 41 of the Selection List) and another eleven (candidates at Sl.Nos.54, 61, 62, 63, 66, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79 & 80 of the Selection List) included under reservation quota for 'General Category-Women'. This is clearly impermissible. The process of selections made by RPSC amounts to treating the 20% reservation for women as a vertical reservation, instead of being a horizontal reservation within the vertical reservation.” 40. In K.Venkatesh’s case (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court, on consideration of Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra), held that the special reservation would apply “horizontally”. This is clearly impermissible. The process of selections made by RPSC amounts to treating the 20% reservation for women as a vertical reservation, instead of being a horizontal reservation within the vertical reservation.” 40. In K.Venkatesh’s case (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court, on consideration of Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra), held that the special reservation would apply “horizontally”. Paras 15 & 16 of K.Venkatesh’s case (supra) are as follows: “15. Further, the Supreme Court had also been confronted with a similar question with regard to reservation in favour of women candidates in the matter of employment in Anil Kumar Gupta V. State of Uttar Pradesh (1995) 5 SCC 173 , Rajesh Kumar Daria V. Rajasthan Public Service Commission (supra) and Shiv Prasad V. Govt., of India (supra), and the said question has been answered in the following manner: ‘21. The next question then is How can this woman-reservation be implemented and enforced? Whether such reservation will violate Indra Sawheny (I) and exceed 50% reservation which is maximum? Our reply is in the negative. Let us consider the issue. 22. In Indra Sawheny (I), Justice Jeevan Reddy dealt with this aspect. His Lordship observed that there are two types of reservations; (i) 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'. 23. His Lordship proceeded to state; ‘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 be- longs to open competition (OC) category, he will be placed in that category by making necessary adjustments. 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 be- longs 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. 24. A similar question came up for consideration in Swati Gupta case. 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 and 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. 25. 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 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. 26. 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. 27. The Court stated (Swati Gupta case); ‘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. 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. 28. A similar question was raised in Anil Kumar Gupta and Ors. v. State of UP. Referring to Indra Sawhney (I) s case and Swati Gupta s case, 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). 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 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 there from. (If, however, it is a case of compartmentalised 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, over- all, 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. 29. It is thus clear that the reservation for women candidates cannot be held invalid or in excess of permissible quota. 29. 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 ?? 16. Therefore, we are convinced that the principle adopted and followed in the matter of selections to the posts of Junior Civil Judges pursuant to the Notification No.1/2007-RC, dated 14.5.2007 by the respondents 1 and 2 is contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and hence it can- not be approved.” 41. The case in Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra) was considered in Saurav Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [ (2021) 4 SCC 542 ] , to which we refer as under. 41.1. In Saurav Yadav (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the High Courts of Rajasthan, Bombay, Uttarakhand and Gujarat have adopted the principle, while dealing with horizontal reservation that, horizontal reservation in favour of woman in general category is available to be filled from amongst all women, irrespective of their caste and status. The post reserved in favour of the general category woman are available for all women and that would include women belonging to reserved categories, such as OBC, SCs and STs. The view taken by these High Courts was referred to as the ‘first view’ that, in giving effect to the horizontal reservation in favour of woman if they belong to the reserved category of ST, SC and OBC, if on their own merit they fall within the horizontal reservation in open category they have to be adjusted in the open category first and then in the reserved category the women candidates be selected as per their merit and the reservation. In other words, these High Courts applied the vertical reservation, in horizontal reservation for the women i.e., the same that if the reserved category candidate on its own merit competes with the general category candidate, he has to be given the open/general category, without effecting the percentage of quota for such reserved category and the next candidate of such reserved category shall be entitled for consideration to fill the reservation quota. These High Courts had also taken the view that its converse would not be true. In other words while implementing horizontal reservation the general category woman would not be adjusted against the reserved category. 41.2. The other view was taken by the High Courts of Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh. These High Courts had also taken the view that its converse would not be true. In other words while implementing horizontal reservation the general category woman would not be adjusted against the reserved category. 41.2. The other view was taken by the High Courts of Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh. They had taken a contrary view. The view was that after vertical reservation are provided for, at the stage of accommodating the candidates for effecting horizontal reservation, the candidates from reserved categories can be adjusted only against their own categories under the vertical reservation concerned and not against the open or general category. This view was referred to as the ‘second view’. 41.3. The Hon’ble Apex Court explaining, the situation which the second view might lead, observed that it might lead to a situation where less meritorious candidates not belonging to any of the reserved categories might be selected in preference to more meritorious candidates coming from reserved category. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the second view was neither based on any authoritative pronouncement nor did it lead to a situation where the merit was given precedence. Subject to any permissible reservations i.e. either social (vertical) or special (horizontal), opportunities to public employment and selection of candidates must purely be based on merit. Any selection which results in candidates getting selected against Open/General category with less merit than the other available candidates would certainly be opposed to principles of equality. The Hon’ble Apex Court did not approve the second view and rejected it. The first view taken by the High Courts of Rajasthan, Bombay, Uttarakhand and Gujarat was held to be the correct view. 41.4. In Saurav Yadav (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that what was stated in para-18 of the Anil Kumar Gupta (supra) and in para-9 in Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra) could not be taken as a declaration supporting the second view and was certainly picked out of context. It was clarified that, that was never the intent of the observations sought to be relied upon in support of the second view. 41.5. Paragraphs-34, 35, 36 to 40 of Saurav Yadav (supra) read as under: “ 34. It was clarified that, that was never the intent of the observations sought to be relied upon in support of the second view. 41.5. Paragraphs-34, 35, 36 to 40 of Saurav Yadav (supra) read as under: “ 34. The second view, based on adoption of a different principle at the stage of horizontal reservation as against the one accepted to be a settled principle for vertical reservation, may thus lead to situations where a less meritorious candidate, not belonging to any of the reserved categories, may get selected in preference to a more meritorious candidate coming from a reserved category. This incongruity, according to the second view, must be accepted because of certain observations of this Court in Anil Kumar Gupta [Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., (1995) 5 SCC 173 ] and Rajesh Kumar Daria [Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, (2007) 8 SCC 785 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 1055] . The following sentences from these two decisions are relied upon in support of the second view: “18. … But if it is not so satisfied, the requisite 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.” [from SCC p. 185, para 18 of Anil Kumar Gupta [Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., (1995) 5 SCC 173 ] ] 9. … But the aforesaid principle applicable to vertical (social) reservations will not apply to horizontal (special) reservations.” [from SCC p. 792, para 9 of Rajesh Kumar Daria [Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, (2007) 8 SCC 785 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 1055] ] These sentences are taken to be a mandate that at the stage of horizontal reservation the candidates must be adjusted/accommodated against their respective categories by deleting corresponding number of candidates from such categories and that the principle applicable for vertical (social reservation) will not apply to horizontal (special reservation). In our view, these sentences cannot be taken as a declaration supporting the second view and are certainly being picked out of context. 35. In our view, these sentences cannot be taken as a declaration supporting the second view and are certainly being picked out of context. 35. The observations in para 18 in Anil Kumar Gupta [Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., (1995) 5 SCC 173 ] contemplated a situation where if “special reservation candidates” entitled to horizontal reservation are to be adjusted in a vertical column meant for “social reservation”, the corresponding number of candidates from such “social reservation category” ought to be deleted. It did not postulate that at the stage of making “special or horizontal reservation” a candidate belonging to any of the “social reservation categories” cannot be considered in Open/General Category. It is true that if the consideration for accommodation at horizontal reservation stage is only with regard to the vertical reservation concerned or social reservation category, the candidates belonging to that category alone must be considered. For example, if horizontal reservation is to be applied with regard to any of the categories of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes, only those candidates answering that description alone can be considered at the stage of horizontal reservation. But it is completely different thing to say that if at the stage of horizontal reservation, accommodation is to be considered against Open/General seats, the candidates coming from any of the reserved categories who are more meritorious must be sidelined. That was never the intent of the observations sought to be relied upon in support of the second view. 36. Similarly, the observations in Rajesh Kumar Daria [Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, (2007) 8 SCC 785 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 1055] were in the context of emphasising a distinguishing feature between vertical and horizontal reservations; in that: (a) At the stage of vertical reservation, the reserved category candidates selected in Open/General category are not to be counted while filling up seats earmarked for the corresponding reserved categories. (b) But the same principle of not counting the selected candidates concerned is not to apply for horizontal reservation. (b) But the same principle of not counting the selected candidates concerned is not to apply for horizontal reservation. Adopting principle (a) at the stage of horizontal reservation, the respondents in Rajesh Kumar Daria [Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, (2007) 8 SCC 785 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 1055] had separately allocated 11 seats for women in General Category as part of special or horizontal reservation, though another set of 11 women candidates had got selected, according to their own merit, in General Category quota. The quota of 11 seats for women having been already satisfied, this Court negated the theory that their number be disregarded while making horizontal reservation for women. It was in that context that the distinction between vertical and horizontal reservations was highlighted by this Court in para 9 of the decision. The subsequent sentence “thus women selected on merit within the vertical reservation quota will be counted against the horizontal reservation for women” in the very same paragraph and the illustration given thereafter are absolutely clear on the point. 37. The decision of this Court in Uttaranchal Public Service Commission v. Mamta Bisht [Uttaranchal Public Service Commission v. Mamta Bisht, (2010) 12 SCC 204 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 208] was also completely misunderstood. In that case one Neetu Joshi had secured a seat in General Category on her own merit and she also answered the category of horizontal reservation earmarked for “Uttaranchal Mahila”. The attempt on part of Mamta Bisht, the original writ petitioner, was to submit that said Neetu Joshi having been appointed on her own merit in General Category, the seat meant for “Uttaranchal Mahila” category had to be filled up by other candidates. In essence, what was projected was the same stand taken by the respondents in Rajesh Kumar Daria [Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, (2007) 8 SCC 785 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 1055] , which was expressly rejected in that case. In essence, what was projected was the same stand taken by the respondents in Rajesh Kumar Daria [Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, (2007) 8 SCC 785 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 1055] , which was expressly rejected in that case. It is for this reason that para 15 of the decision in Uttaranchal Public Service Commission v. Mamta Bisht [Uttaranchal Public Service Commission v. Mamta Bisht, (2010) 12 SCC 204 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 208] expressly returned a finding that the judgment rendered by the High Court in accepting the claim of Mamta Bisht was not in consonance with law laid down in Rajesh Kumar Daria [Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, (2007) 8 SCC 785 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 1055] and the appeal was allowed. This decision is thus not of any help or assistance in support of the second view. 38. The second view is thus neither based on any authoritative pronouncement by this Court nor does it lead to a situation where the merit is given precedence. Subject to any permissible reservations i.e. either social (vertical) or special (horizontal), opportunities to public employment and selection of candidates must purely be based on merit. Any selection which results in candidates getting selected against Open/General category with less merit than the other available candidates will certainly be opposed to principles of equality. There can be special dispensation when it comes to candidates being considered against seats or quota meant for reserved categories and in theory it is possible that a more meritorious candidate coming from Open/General category may not get selected. But the converse can never be true and will be opposed to the very basic principles which have all the while been accepted by this Court. Any view or process of interpretation which will lead to incongruity as highlighted earlier, must be rejected. 39. The second view will thus not only lead to irrational results where more meritorious candidates may possibly get sidelined as indicated above but will, of necessity, result in acceptance of a postulate that Open/General seats are reserved for candidates other than those coming from vertical reservation categories. Such view will be completely opposed to the long line of decisions of this Court. 40. We, therefore, do not approve the second view and reject it. Such view will be completely opposed to the long line of decisions of this Court. 40. We, therefore, do not approve the second view and reject it. The first view which weighed with the High Courts of Rajasthan, Bombay, Uttarakhand and Gujarat is correct and rational.” 42. In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Sandeep Choudhary, (2022) 11 SCC 779 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed and held as under in paragraph Nos.23 and 24: “ 23. In a more recent decision this Court in Saurav Yadav v. State of U.P. [Saurav Yadav v. State of U.P., (2021) 4 SCC 542 : (2021) 1 SCC (L&S) 752] after referring to all the earlier judgments on vertical reservation has observed and held that it is well settled that candidates belonging to any of the vertical reservation categories are entitled to be selected in “open or general” category and it is also further observed that if such candidates belonging to reserved categories are entitled to be selected on the basis of their own merit, their selection cannot be counted against the quota reserved for the categories that they belong. 24. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in another recent decision of this Court in Sadhana Singh Dangi v. Pinki Asati [Sadhana Singh Dangi v. Pinki Asati, (2022) 12 SCC 401 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1329] . By the said decision, it is reiterated that the reserved category candidates securing higher marks than the last of the general category candidates are entitled to get seat/post in unreserved categories. It is further observed and held that even while applying horizontal reservation, merit must be given precedence and if the candidates, who belong to SCs, STs and OBCs have secured higher marks or are more meritorious, they must be considered against the seats meant for unreserved candidates . It is further observed that the candidates belonging to reserved categories can as well stake claim to seats in unreserved categories if their merit and position in the merit list entitles them to do so.” 43. Recently, in Ramnaresh alias Rindu Kushwah v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2024 SCC OnLine SC 2058] the Hon’ble Apex Court observed and held as under in paragraph Nos. 11 to 16: “ 11. Recently, in Ramnaresh alias Rindu Kushwah v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2024 SCC OnLine SC 2058] the Hon’ble Apex Court observed and held as under in paragraph Nos. 11 to 16: “ 11. However, this Court, in the case of Saurav Yadav (supra), had an occasion to consider for the first time as to whether the said principle laid down in the case of Indra Sawhney (supra) and followed subsequently would also apply to the cases of horizontal reservation. Prior to the said judgment, there were conflicting views of different High Courts. This Court, after surveying various earlier pronouncements and considering the views as expressed by the High Courts, observed thus: “ 43. Finally, we must say that the steps indicated by the High Court of Gujarat in para 69 of its judgment in Tamannaben Ashokbhai Desai [Tamannaben Ashokbhai Desai v. Shital Amrutlal Nishar, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2592] contemplate the correct and appropriate procedure for considering and giving effect to both vertical and horizontal reservations. The illustration given by us deals with only one possible dimension. There could be multiple such possibilities. Even going by the present illustration, the first female candidate allocated in the vertical column for Scheduled Tribes may have secured higher position than the candidate at Serial No. 64. In that event said candidate must be shifted from the category of Scheduled Tribes to Open/General category causing a resultant vacancy in the vertical column of Scheduled Tribes. Such vacancy must then enure to the benefit of the candidate in the waiting list for Scheduled Tribes-Female. The steps indicated by the Gujarat High Court will take care of every such possibility. It is true that the exercise of laying down a procedure must necessarily be left to the authorities concerned but we may observe that one set out in said judgment will certainly satisfy all claims and will not lead to any incongruity as highlighted by us in the preceding paragraphs.” 12. It could thus be seen that, this Court approved the steps indicated by the High Court of Gujarat in paragraph 69 of its judgment in the case of Tamannaben Ashokbhai Desai v. Shital Amrutlal Nishar 6 for considering and giving effect to both vertical and horizontal reservations. In the said case, this Court was considering horizontal reservation for the female candidates. In the said case, this Court was considering horizontal reservation for the female candidates. It was observed that a meritorious reserved category candidate who is entitled to the General category of the said horizontal reservation on his own merit, will have to be allotted a seat from the said General category of the horizontal reservation. Meaning thereby such a candidate cannot be counted in a horizontal seat reserved for the category of vertical reservation like SC/ST. 13. It will also be apposite to refer to the following observations made by S. Ravindra Bhat, J. in his concurring judgment: “ 66. I would conclude by saying that reservations, both vertical and horizontal, are method of ensuring representation in public services. These are not to be seen as rigid “slots”, where a candidate's merit, which otherwise entitles her to be shown in the open general category, is foreclosed, as the consequence would be, if the State's argument is accepted. Doing so, would result in a communal reservation, where each social category is confined within the extent of their reservation, thus negating merit. The open category is open to all, and the only condition for a candidate to be shown in it is merit, regardless of whether reservation benefit of either type is available to her or him .” [emphasis supplied] 14. It could thus be seen that the learned Judge clearly observed that the horizontal as well as the vertical reservation would not be seen as rigid “slots”, where a candidate's merit, which otherwise entitles her or him to be shown in the open general category, is foreclosed. It was observed that by doing so, it would result in communal reservation, where each social category is confined within the extent of their reservation, thus negating merit. It was observed that the open category is open to all, and the only condition for a candidate to be shown in it is merit, regardless of whether reservation benefit of either type is available to her or him. 15. The said view was reiterated by this Court in the case of Sadhana Singh Dangi v. Pinki Asati 7 16. It was observed that the open category is open to all, and the only condition for a candidate to be shown in it is merit, regardless of whether reservation benefit of either type is available to her or him. 15. The said view was reiterated by this Court in the case of Sadhana Singh Dangi v. Pinki Asati 7 16. In view of the settled position of law as laid down by this Court in the case of Saurav Yadav (supra) and reiterated in the case of Sadhana Singh Dangi (supra), the methodology adopted by the respondents in compartmentalizing the different categories in the horizontal reservation and restricting the migration of the meritorious reserved category candidates to the unreserved seats is totally unsustainable. In view of the law laid down by this Court, the meritorious candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC, who on their own merit, were entitled to be selected against the UR-GS quota, have been denied the seats against the open seats in the GS quota.” 44. In view of the law as laid down in Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra) as explained in Saurav Yadav (supra), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (supra) and Ramnaresh alias Rindu Kushwah (supra), so far as application of the special reservation (Horizontal) is concerned, the law thus settled is that for effecting horizontal reservation in vertical reservation, at the stage of accommodating candidates, the candidates from reserved categories can be adjusted against the open or general category, on their own merit, but its vice versa is not correct, that is that, the open or general category candidates cannot be adjusted in the vertical reservation for implementing horizontal reservation i.e., that the general category candidate, cannot be given seat or post against reserved category for SC, ST or OBC, while accommodating candidates for effecting horizontal reservation. 45. We have considered the aforesaid to state the legal position as settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court on the point of horizontal reservation and its implementation. However, in the present case, the implementation of the horizontal reservation by adjusting the women candidate belonging to the reserved category of SC, ST and OBC, in the general category, is not in issue. It is not the argument of any of the counsels before us, that any woman candidate of the reserved category of SC/ST/OBC on her own merit deserved to be adjusted horizontally in General/OC under the quota for reservation for women. It is not the argument of any of the counsels before us, that any woman candidate of the reserved category of SC/ST/OBC on her own merit deserved to be adjusted horizontally in General/OC under the quota for reservation for women. 46. Here, the question involved is relating to the implementation of horizontal reservation, within the open category in favour of women. In other words, the question involved is if the women candidates of the general category, against 10 vacancies could be adjusted more than 4, falling under the 33 1/3% the way they have been adjusted by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission. The question is applying the horizontal reservation in the same open category, vertically, i.e, first, giving the selection on merit to three women candidates but not counting them within their quota and then selecting 4 more for 4 reserved post, and filling those by women candidates including those who acquired lesser marks than the applicant. 47. We are of the view that as per Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra), Saurav Yadav (supra) and Ramnaresh alias Rinku Kushwah (supra) the mode of giving effect to the horizontal reservation must have been to prepare a common merit list of the general category candidates including the men and the women candidates. Then, to see, first, as to how many women candidates were selected for the ten vacancies as per the merit list. If those 10 candidates did not include 4 women then to the extent, they were short in number 4, the general category candidates, from the bottom of the list of 10, deserved to be removed to that extent of shortfall and replacing them by the women candidates, next in merit of the list beyond 10. In the present case, out of 10, there were already 3 women selected based on their own merit. They could not be ignored and taken out of the quota for reservation. So, out of 4, 3 have already been selected. Just one woman was required to be selected to fulfill the special reservation quota, ‘horizontal’. To bring in one woman candidate within 10, the last candidate at serial No.10 deserved to be removed and replaced by one woman candidate. The applicant was at serial No.9 of the combined merit list of men and women. So, there would be no occasion, not to select him, within 10. To bring in one woman candidate within 10, the last candidate at serial No.10 deserved to be removed and replaced by one woman candidate. The applicant was at serial No.9 of the combined merit list of men and women. So, there would be no occasion, not to select him, within 10. What the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission did that it selected all the 4 under the quota, who were less meritorious than the applicant, in addition to three (3), which occupied that position within 10, on their own merit and thus calculated that there were 6 posts, i.e., excluding 4 reserved, and the applicant being at serial No.9 could not be selected. The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission as also the State fell in error in applying the horizontal reservation in such a manner, and thus, deprived the applicant, his selection, though he was within 9 out of 10, on his own merit. 48. The chart of the selected candidates including 7 women is reproduced as under, as mentioned in paragraph No.11 in W.P.No.24591 of 2012. Roster Point General/Women Gender of the person selected Marks of the selected candidate 82 General Woman 464 84 Woman Woman 404 86 General Woman 434 88 General Woman 432 90 Woman Woman 403 92 General Male 428 96 Woman Woman 394 98 General Male 426 100 General Male 424 001 Woman Woman 392 49. The above chart when seen along with merit list at page 61-62 of W.P.No.24591 of 2012, shows that the three women at Regd.No.23010339 – P. Srilakshmi, Regd.No.23070023 – V. L. Subhadra Devi, and Regd.No.23032432 – G. Krishna Priya, shown at Roster Points 82, 86 and 88 respectively, obtained higher marks i.e., 464, 434 and 432 marks respectively. Out of the remaining 4 women candidates, as shown in the table (supra), they obtained 404 (Roster Point 84), 403 (Roster point 90), 394 (Roster point 96) and 392 (Roster point 001) marks. All these 4 women candidates selected, obtained lesser marks than the applicant who secured 409 marks. The 3 women already having been selected as per their own merit, as indicated above, to fulfill the reservation quota of 33 1/3% of women horizontally, just one post was required to be filled. So, out of the 4 women candidates, as indicated above, having obtained lesser marks than the applicant, only one shown at Roster Point 84, marks 404, could be selected. So, out of the 4 women candidates, as indicated above, having obtained lesser marks than the applicant, only one shown at Roster Point 84, marks 404, could be selected. The State and the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, however, selected 3 more women candidates shown at Roster Points 90, 96 and 001. So, the applicant having higher marks, was ousted, otherwise, he would have been selected being at Sl.No.9. If the procedure had been followed as per law, for applying the horizontal reservation, the applicant would have been selected as per his merit. 50. Thus, considered on point Nos.(i) & (ii) we hold that the reservation in favour of woman is a horizontal reservation. The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission and the State failed to apply it correctly as per the settled law and thereby illegally denied the selection and appointment to the applicant in O.A. (petitioner of W.P.No.16265 of 2014), as discussed in paragraphs-47 to 49 (supra). POINT No.(iii): 51. In view of what we have held on Points No.(i) and (ii), the judgment of the Tribunal is perfectly legal that the applicant was, illegally denied selection due to the faulty procedure applied by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission. Further, in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the direction by the Tribunal not to interfere with the selection of the excess women candidates, though contrary to law, on the ground that they were working since long, also need not be interfered with by us, as since then almost 13 more years have passed and it would not be proper at this point of time, to remove one woman appointee, so as to accommodate the applicant. But, the applicant can also not be made to suffer for no fault on his part. We would discuss this aspect in some detail to come to conclusion as to what relief can be granted to the applicant as this stage, keeping in view the submissions of the learned counsels for Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission and the State that, the applicant does not belong to BC-D and so the Tribunal could not pass the Order in his favour against BC-D post. 52. We would refer to Ramnaresh alias Rinku Kushwah (supra) wherein the appellants were deprived of their legitimate claim of admission against the UR-GS category in the Academic Session 2023-2024. 52. We would refer to Ramnaresh alias Rinku Kushwah (supra) wherein the appellants were deprived of their legitimate claim of admission against the UR-GS category in the Academic Session 2023-2024. The admission process for the said academic session was completed. The Hon’ble Apex Court proceeded to consider as to what relief should be granted in favour of the appellants and in paragraph Nos.19 and 20. It was observed and held as under: “ 19. It will be apposite to refer to the observations made by this Court in the judgment of S. Krishna Sradha (supra), which read thus: “ 13. In light of the discussion/observations made hereinabove, a meritorious candidate/student who has been denied an admission in MBBS course illegally or irrationally by the authorities for no fault of his/her and who has approached the Court in time and so as to see that such a meritorious candidate may not have to suffer for no fault of his/her, we answer the reference as under: 13.1. That in a case where candidate/student has approached the court at the earliest and without any delay and that the question is with respect to the admission in medical course all the efforts shall be made by the court concerned to dispose of the proceedings by giving priority and at the earliest. 13.2. Under exceptional circumstances, if the court finds that there is no fault attributable to the candidate and the candidate has pursued his/her legal right expeditiously without any delay and there is fault only on the part of the authorities and/or there is apparent breach of rules and regulations as well as related principles in the process of grant of admission which would violate the right of equality and equal treatment to the competing candidates and if the time schedule prescribed — 30 th September, is over, to do the complete justice, the Court under exceptional circumstances and in rarest of rare cases direct the admission in the same year by directing to increase the seats, however, it should not be more than one or two seats and such admissions can be ordered within reasonable time i.e. within one month from 30 th September i.e. cut-off date and under no circumstances, the Court shall order any admission in the same year beyond 30 th October. However, it is observed that such relief can be granted only in exceptional circumstances and in the rarest of rare cases. In case of such an eventuality, the Court may also pass an order cancelling the admission given to a candidate who is at the bottom of the merit list of the category who, if the admission would have been given to a more meritorious candidate who has been denied admission illegally, would not have got the admission, if the Court deems it fit and proper, however, after giving an opportunity of hearing to a student whose admission is sought to be cancelled. 13.3. In case the Court is of the opinion that no relief of admission can be granted to such a candidate in the very academic year and wherever it finds that the action of the authorities has been arbitrary and in breach of the rules and regulations or the prospectus affecting the rights of the students and that a candidate is found to be meritorious and such candidate/student has approached the court at the earliest and without any delay, the court can mould the relief and direct the admission to be granted to such a candidate in the next academic year by issuing appropriate directions by directing to increase in the number of seats as may be considered appropriate in the case and in case of such an eventuality and if it is found that the management was at fault and wrongly denied the admission to the meritorious candidate, in that case, the Court may direct to reduce the number of seats in the management quota of that year, meaning thereby the student/students who was/were denied admission illegally to be accommodated in the next academic year out of the seats allotted in the management quota. 13.4. Grant of the compensation could be an additional remedy but not a substitute for restitutional remedies. Therefore, in an appropriate case the Court may award the compensation to such a meritorious candidate who for no fault of his/her has to lose one full academic year and who could not be granted any relief of admission in the same academic year.” 20. Undisputedly, the appellants who were meritorious and who could have been admitted against the UR-GS category were denied admission on account of an erroneous application of the methodology in applying the horizontal and vertical reservation. Undisputedly, the appellants who were meritorious and who could have been admitted against the UR-GS category were denied admission on account of an erroneous application of the methodology in applying the horizontal and vertical reservation. It is also not in dispute that many of the students, who secured much less marks than the appellants, have been admitted against the UR-GS seats. This is totally in contravention of the law laid down by this Court in the cases of Saurav Yadav (supra) and Sadhana Singh Dangi (supra) . We therefore find that as held by this Court in the case of S. Krishna Sradha (supra), it will be appropriate to issue directions to the respondents to admit the appellants in the next Academic Session 2024-2025 against the UR-GS seats. Vide order dated 12 th August 2024, we have already directed 7 seats to be kept vacant in the event the appellants succeed. The appellants can be very well accommodated against the said seats.” 53. The Hon’ble Apex Court thus observed inter alia, in Ramnaresh alias Rinku Kushwah (supra) that if a candidate is found to be meritorious and could have been admitted, but was denied admission on account of an erroneous methodology in applying the horizontal and vertical reservation, for no fault of his and the person with lesser marks having been admitted, the Court can mould the relief. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that the grant of compensation could be an additional remedy but not a substitute for restitutional remedies. Therefore, in an appropriate case the Court may also award the compensation, additionally, to such a meritorious candidates who for no fault of his/her had to loose. The appellants therein were meritorious and could have been admitted but were denied admission on account of erroneous application of the methodology in applying the horizontal and vertical reservation. Many of the students who had secured much less marks than the appellants, had been admitted against the UR-GS seats, which had been totally in contravention of the law laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The directions were given in favour of such meritorious appellants. 54. In the present case, the applicant was meritorious and if the selection had been made applying the correct principle of law relating to horizontal and vertical reservation, the applicant would have been selected. The directions were given in favour of such meritorious appellants. 54. In the present case, the applicant was meritorious and if the selection had been made applying the correct principle of law relating to horizontal and vertical reservation, the applicant would have been selected. It cannot be in dispute that, the woman candidates in excess of the reserved quota of 33 1/3% had been appointed, and those in excess secured less marks than the applicant. The applicant was denied selection violating the right of equal treatment and for no fault on his part. 55. We are also of the view that the situation in respect of grant of relief to the applicant, as before the Tribunal and also before this Court, has arisen, because of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission and the State of Andhra Pradesh. We say so, because the State and Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, as is also reflected from the events narrated above and on record, that Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission and the State of Andhra Pradesh did not follow the interim order dated 16.06.2010 passed in O.A.No.3556 of 2010. If that had been followed and one post in OC/General category was kept reserved and not filled by the respondent No.8 in writ petition No.16265 of 2014, which had lesser marks than the applicant, then there would have been no difficulty in giving appointment to the applicant against the post falling in OC category pursuant to the same notification. The occasion for giving the applicant, post under BC-D would not have arisen at all. It is evident from the counter affidavit and the additional counter affidavit filed by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission as referred to above in O.A. that, one post of OC category had not been filled by the time the interim order was granted. The same was filled later on. We say so because in the counter affidavit dated 19.08.2010 though it was mentioned that on the post of OC general category, selection was made, but the appointment date was not mentioned. Later on, something transpired to the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission and that is why to clarify the same, additional counter affidavit was filed with respect to that post, that, one post of OC category was withheld and later on the appointment was given. This additional counter affidavit was also filed on 12.09.2011. Later on, something transpired to the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission and that is why to clarify the same, additional counter affidavit was filed with respect to that post, that, one post of OC category was withheld and later on the appointment was given. This additional counter affidavit was also filed on 12.09.2011. The interim order is dated 16.06.2010. So, it becomes clear that, by the date the interim order was granted in O.A., the appointment had not been given against one vacant post of OC, though selection had been made. 56. Though, the Tribunal closed the contempt matter for violation of the interim order dated 16.06.2010 and directed the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission to adjust the applicant against BC-D post, in view of the fact that before it, as per the additional counter affidavit, it was represented that, the vacant post of BC-D, due to non-joining of the selected BC-D candidate, was to be carried forward, but by that day the post BC-D had also not been filled and even the notification for subsequent recruitment had not been issued. The Tribunal thus in the fact situation moulded the relief as follows: “21. Point-II: In view of the above facts and settled law, the prayer of the applicant deserves to be granted. As examined and held above, the applicant deserves to be selected under OC (General) category under which 6 vacancies are notified, on the basis of his merit. It is also evident that as against 4 Women candidates 7 women candidates under OC Segment have been recruited which is in excess of the permissible limit i.e. 33 1/3%. These three excess women candidates selected under OC (Women) have already joined the government service as per the posting orders issued by the Government and are undergoing training at present. Their selection is not due to any fault on their part and they did not indulge in any misrepresentation in this regard. Therefore, it may not be appropriate and justifiable now to upset their selection and appointment. Therefore, we do not prefer to disturb their selection and appointments. Their selection is not due to any fault on their part and they did not indulge in any misrepresentation in this regard. Therefore, it may not be appropriate and justifiable now to upset their selection and appointment. Therefore, we do not prefer to disturb their selection and appointments. We direct the official respondents to review forthwith the case of the applicant who would have otherwise made the grade but missed out the selection in view of improperly treating the vacancies earmarked for women under OC Segment and not adopting the principle of horizontal reservation as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As stated by the 1 st respondent in their counter, one vacancy (BC-D) is not yet filled up as the selected candidate did not join. The applicant can be adjusted against this vacancy now and one vacancy from the women category be suppressed in the future notification and made good for BC-D post which is now to be utilized for adjusting the applicant 22. With the above findings and directions, the OA is accordingly allowed.” 57. However, the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission and the State filed the writ petition No. 24591 of 2012 and writ petition No.17319 of 2012, challenging that the applicant cannot be adjusted against BC-D post, he being the general category candidate, and in the meantime, during the pendency of the writ petition(s), as per the averments in the writ petition, that post has also been carried forward to the subsequent recruitment, advertised and result declared. The learned counsel for the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission and the State were not in a position, to say if that post has actually been filled or not. So, if we maintain that direction of the Tribunal to adjust the applicant against BC-D post, without issuing further directions, and if that post has already been filled by a candidate of BC-D, in the subsequent recruitment, the applicant, even after success in such a long legal battle, would find himself standing nowhere. Conclusion: 58. So, if we maintain that direction of the Tribunal to adjust the applicant against BC-D post, without issuing further directions, and if that post has already been filled by a candidate of BC-D, in the subsequent recruitment, the applicant, even after success in such a long legal battle, would find himself standing nowhere. Conclusion: 58. Consequently, the writ petition No.16265 of 2014 filed by the applicant deserves to be allowed by issuing direction to the State and also the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission to appoint the petitioner/applicant on the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests; i. against the BC-D category post pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal under Order/Judgment dated 16.06.2010 and in terms thereof, if such post is still available and had not been subsequently filled by a candidate belonging to BC-D; OR ii. against available General/Open category post and if not so available to create a supernumerary post to accommodate the applicant/petitioner in W.P.No.16265 of 2014, in OC/General Category. iii. The applicant shall be entitled to count his seniority at par the batch of the candidates selected and appointed pursuant to the notification No.23/2007 dated 06.12.2007 in which he had appeared and obtained the merit position for being selected. iv. The other consequential benefits, however would be notional only. 59. The aforesaid act of Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission and the State of Andhra Pradesh, particularly as noted inter alia in paragraph-55 so as to deny the legal claim of the applicant belonging to the open category for selection on his merit cannot have any support of law. The State and Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission are not expected to act in such a way to deny the legal claim for selection and appointment to any candidate based on his merit and entitled under law for selection and appointment. So, cost also deserves to be imposed on them. v. Under the circumstances, we also impose costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each, on the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, to be deposited with the Registrar General of this Court. 50% of the costs so deposited shall be paid to the applicant/petitioner of W.P.No.16265 of 2014 and 50% shall be to the credit of Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Service Committee, Amaravathi. Result: 60. 50% of the costs so deposited shall be paid to the applicant/petitioner of W.P.No.16265 of 2014 and 50% shall be to the credit of Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Service Committee, Amaravathi. Result: 60. In the result, (i) W.P.No.24591 of 2012 filed by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission is dismissed. (ii) W.P.No.17319 of 2012 filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh is dismissed. (iii) W.P.No.16265 of 2014 filed by the applicant is allowed by issuing direction to the State and also the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission to appoint the petitioner/applicant on the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests: a) against the BC-D category post pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal under Order/Judgment dated 16.06.2010 and in terms thereof, if such post is still available and had not been subsequently filled by a candidate belonging to BC-D; OR b) against available General/Open category post and if not so available to create a supernumerary post to accommodate the applicant/petitioner in W.P.No.16265 of 2014, in OC/General Category. c) The applicant shall be entitled to count his seniority at par the batch of the candidates selected and appointed pursuant to the notification No.23/2007 dated 06.12.2007 in which he had appeared and obtained the merit position for being selected. d) The other consequential benefits, however would be notional only. e) Under the circumstances, we also impose costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each, on the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, to be deposited with the Registrar General of this Court. 50% of the costs so deposited shall be paid to the applicant/petitioner of W.P.No.16265 of 2014 and 50% shall be to the credit of Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Service Committee, Amaravathi. f) The directions as in para-(iii) (a) to (d) shall be complied with as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of one month from the date the copy of this order is placed before the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission by the petitioner; Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.