WP(C) 2245/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Ms. P. Chokra borty, learned Standing counsel, Social Welfare Department. In the selection for the post of Supervisor, the petitioner occupied the merit position at serial No. 54, while the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are at se rial No. 5, 6 and 10. That being the position, there is no question of appointin g the petitioner ahead of the private respondents. As per the own admission of t he petitioner, the number of vacancy was 15. Thus, the petitioner’s position in the merit list being at serial No. 54, there is no question of appointing her. I n paragraph 24 of the writ petition, a general statement has been made that the petitioner being a reserved candidate (SC), she has a right for appointment. How ever, in absence of any particular disclosure in the writ petition as to how man y SC candidates were selected and appointed and as to how the Roster point was o perated, merely on the basis of the statements that the petitioner belongs to SC category candidate, no direction can be made to appoint the petitioner. It will have to be borne in mind that ahead of the petitioner there are 53 candidates. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed.