Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

1. Present batch of writ petitions would arise out of one and the same selection process for recruitment of Subedar/Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander, therefore, they were heard analogously and disposed of by this common order.

Reliefs sought:

2. In WP (S) No. 1336 of 2015 the petitioner (Dhananjay Nirmalkar) has prayed for a direction to the respondents to appoint him on the post of Sub-Inspector by virtue of memo dated 25.8.2014.

3. Petitioner (Priyanka Suryavanshi), in WP (S) No. 847 of 2015, has prayed for quashment of the select list (Annexure-P/1) to the extent of non-inclusion of her name in the list of successful candidates and, thereafter, to direct the authorities to appoint the petitioner on the post of Sub-Inspector in accordance with her merit together with all consequential benefits. By amending the relief clause the petitioner has further prayed for setting aside the appointment of the respondents no. 5 to 9 who have been appointed against the Scheduled Caste (Woman) category candidates with further direction to appoint the petitioner as Sub-Inspector in the Scheduled Caste (Woman) category with all consequential benefits.

4. Petitioner (Ku. Ramkumari Sahu), in WP (S) No. 1283 of 2015, has prayed for a direction to the Director General of Police to issue joining letter/order as per the waiting list and reservation policy as also for cancellation of the appointment of the respondent No. 6 who has wrongly been appointed as Sub-Inspector on a post reserved for Other Backward Class (Woman) category though he is a male candidate.

5. In WP (S) No. 1215 of 2015 the petitioner (Ku. Durga Dhruv) has prayed for a direction to the Director General of Police to issue appointment order/joining letter to the petitioner as per the waiting list (Annexure-P/8) and further to cancel the appointment of the respondent No. 4 Makardhwaj Pradhan.

Brief facts:

6. The police headquarters issued advertisement on 17.12.2011 for filling up 50 posts of Subedar, 563 posts of Sub-Inspector, 28 posts of Sub-Inspector (Special Branch), 90 posts of Platoon Commander, 19 posts of Sub-Inspector (Radio), 6 post of Sub-Inspector (Finger Print) and 2 posts of Sub-Inspector (Disputed Document), in all 758 posts for which the petitioners submitted their applications. The advertisement specifically provided that the reservation rules and instructions issued by the State Government from time to time shall be applicable in the subject recruitment with further stipulation that as per the Government order 30% posts shall be reserved, however, it can be reduced up to 10% with prior approval of the cabinet.

WP (S) No. 1336 of 2015:

7. Petitioner (Dhananjay Nirmalkar) belongs to Other Backward Class (Male) category. Out of 563 posts of Sub-Inspector, 79 posts were reserved for OBC category. Out of which 8 posts were reserved for OBC (Woman) category and the rest were open for all OBC candidates.

8. Petitioner's claim is based on the memo dated 25.8.2014 wherein his name finds place amongst the candidates who have been chosen for appointment from the waiting list.

9. State's stand in this petition is that the said memo was wrongly issued on the basis of descending order roll number-wise whereas, in fact, the petitioner has secured less marks than the last selected candidate in the OBC category. It is the specific stand of the State that the last candidate in the OBC category for the post of Sub-Inspector has secured 588.036 marks whereas the petitioner has secured 584.542 marks and was, thus, placed below in the merit list, therefore, he was not offered appointment.

10. It is a trite law, as held by the Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47, Union of India and Others vs. Kali Dass Batish and Another, (2006) 1 SCC 779, State of Orissa and Another vs. Rajkishore Nanda and Others, (2010) 6 SCC 777 and Vijay Kumar Mishra and Another vs. High Court of Judicature at Patna and Another, (2016) 9 SCC 313 that the empanelm