The main legal point established is that the waiting list should not be limited to a certain percentage of the main list, and the respondents must offer appointment to the petitioners against the unfilled vacancies, subject to meeting the minimum qualifying marks.

( 1 ) BOTH the petitions are inter-knit by common questions of law and fact and being amenable to disposal by a Composite order, the petitions were taken up together with the consent of the learned Counsel, for the parties.

( 2 ) THE dispute relates to appointment on posts of Sub-Inspector of Police and the facts concisely stated are that the petitioners had put form their candidatures for appointment pursuant to an advertisement published in Newspaper on 10. 10. 91. The petitioners in writ petition No. 2223 of 2000 are backward class candidates whereas the petitioners in writ petition No. 19900 of 2000 belong to general category.

( 3 ) THE gravemen of the petitioners is that despite direction given by this Court to fill up the unfilled and dropped vacancies, the waiting list was wrongly abbreviated to 25% of the main list. It appears that in the course of interview, the State Government cancelled the entire selection vide notification dated 9th June, 1994 but the Government decision to cancel the selection process came to be quashed by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 23rd May, 1995 rendered in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21994 of 1994, Ram Das Rai and Ors. v. State of U. P. and Ors. The result was ultimately declared on 22nd December, 1996 to fill up 630 vacancies. Subsequently on 16. 1. 97, the Government decided to initially advertise newly created posts also out of the candidate who had participated in the selection. However, it appears that when the result was declared, no waiting list was prepared and accordingly a writ petition being Civil misc. Writ Petition No. 40495 of 1996, Ravindra Nath and Ors. v. State of U. P. and Ors. , was filed in this Court which culminated in decision vide judgment and order dated 28. 5. 97 attended with the directions to the respondents therein to prepare a waiting list and consider the appointment of the persons in the waiting list in accordance with the merit equal to the number of candidates in the main select list who did not join. State of U. P. filed Special Appeal it being special Appeal No. 313 of 1998 against the judgment dated 28. 5. 97 Reported in 1999 (2) ESC 1255 (All ). The Special Appeal came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 3. 2. 99. Reported in 1999 (2) ESC 1255 (All), holding that there being no justifiable reason for not considering the candidatures of the candidates figuring in the comparative merit list next below the list of candidates absorbed. The appellant, it was observed, must consider the candidature of such candidates for filling up 136 advertised vacant posts. Special Leave Petition filed against the judgment of the Division Bench came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 26. 7. 99. On the basis of the directions given by the Court, a waiting list was drawn but, it appears, it was confined to 25% of the main list. The petitioners could not secure a place in the waiting list so prepared and accordingly, the waiting lists dated 12. 10. 99 and 2. 1. 2000 are sought to be quashed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2223 of 2000.

( 4 ) I have heard Sri Ashok Khare and Sri V. K. Shukla, for the petitioners and Sri Kripa Shanker singh, Standing Counsel appearing, for the State authorities. The total number of vacancies that were sought to be filled in by means of the selection held pursuant advertisement issued in 1991 was 716 out of which 630 were existing vacancies and 86 were newly created vacancies. It appears that out of 716 candidates selected for recruitment to the posts of Sub-Inspectors 123 did not join, and 13 candidates dropped out mid-way in the course of training resulting in 136 vacancies unfilled. The Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal aforestated has luminously held that "136 vacancies against the advertised posts being available, and there being no justifiable reasons in not considering the candidatures of the candidates in the compative merit list next below the list