WP(C) 5551/2006 BEFORE THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr . B.K. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Social Welfare Department. I have also h eard Mr. A. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a directio n to the respondents to appoint him to the post of Statistical Assistant by sett ing aside and quashing the appointment of the respondent No.4 affected vide orde r dated 28/2/2006. The grounds on which the said prayer has been made is that th e respondent No.4 has been appointed without maintaining the merit position in t he select list. It will be pertinent to mention here that in the writ petition, the order of appointment of the respondent No.4 has not been annexed. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been stated th at the appointments were made against 7(seven) vacancies and although the respon dent No.4’s merit position was at Sl. No.12 but was appointed on the basis of th e percentage of reservation, he being an SC category candidate. Referring to the Annexure-A merit list annexed to the rejoinder affidavi t filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit filed by the official respond ents, Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cand idate at Sl. No.5 having already been appointed as SC category candidate, the re spondent No.4 whose merit position was at Sl. No. 12, could not have been appoin ted as SC category candidate exceeding the percentage of reservation. He has als o produced the photocopy of the purported merit list showing another candidate a t Sl. No.7 as SC category candidate so as to contend that if the same is accepte d, as many as, 3 (three) SC category candidate has been appointed, which was in excess of the percentage of reservation. Countering the above arguments, both Mr. B.K. Sarma, learned Standing Co unsel, Social Welfare Department as well as Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the re spondent No.4 submits that the SC category candidates who had been appointed on their own merit, cannot be cited as SC category candidates towards liquidating t he percentage of reservation and that the only candidate who had been appointed as SC category candidate, being the respondent No.4, the whole basis of the clai m of the petitioner falls through. The petitioner has not disclosed the total cadre strength so as to calcu late the total number of posts which will go to SC category candidate. That apar t, the select list being on the basis of merit, the SC category candidate at Sl. No.5 cannot be said to be in that position on the basis of reservation. Even th e other SC category candidate whose position is at Sl. No.7 in the photocopy of the merit list that has been produced by Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner being within the vacancy position, which was 7, will have to be taken as a selected candidate on his own merit and not as a reserved category candida te. If the respondent No.4 has been appointed as a reserved category candidate, the petitioner cannot claim that his position being at Sl. No.8 should have been appointed in preference to the respondent No.4 being at Sl. No.12 irrespective of the fact that the respondent No.4 is a SC category candidate. Above being the position, no direction can be issued to the respondents to appoint the petitioner against the vacancy in question and consequently there is also no question of setting aside and quashing of the appointment of the res pondent No.4. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed, without however, a ny order as to costs.