Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the result declared on 16/17.6.2006 with regard to the post of Constables (Male) in U.P. Police Force at Fatehpur Centre. In so far as it has not made recruitment of vacancies reserved for Ex-servicemen to the extent of 5% quota prescribed in The Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation For Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993 (herein after referred as’1993 Act’).

3. The facts in brief are that: in the daily newspaper ‘Amar Ujala’ an advertisement was published for recruitment of Constables (Male) in the U.P. Police Force. The number of vacancies notified were 5404. Vacancies were sub-divided in 16 Recruitment Centres and at Fatehpur Recruitment Centre, 270 vacancies were allotted.

4. Reservation for various categories was provided in accordance with relevant provisions as applicable in the State of U.P.

5. All the petitioners are Ex-servicemen having rendered service in Indian Army and some of them are general and some belong to Other Backward Class. They all applied pursuant to the said advertisement. At various stages of recruitment process including physical test, written test, interview etc. they appeared.

6. The 1993 Act as amended in 1999, provided 5% vacancies in direct recruitment for Ex-servicemen. Therefore at Fatehpur recruitment centre against 270 vacancies, 5% Ex-servicemen quota comes to 13 vacancies. Therefore, vide 1993 Act as amended in 1999, 13 vacancies were liable to be filled in from Ex-Servicemen treating the same reserved vacancies.

7. The respondents however, declared 10 candidates successful in written test. Therefore all such candidates, belong to Ex-servicemen category could have been declared successful. Instead respondents finally declared only one candidate selected against the vacancies meant for Ex-servicemen resulting in denial of benefit of reservation of Ex-servicemen to the petitioners.

8. Respondents have filed a counter-affidavit wherein basic facts have not been disputed. It is, however, said that ten candidates who qualified in written test and belong to Ex-servicemen category, included petitioners No. 1 to 7 who obtained total marks as under.

Rajeev Kumar - 108

Om Prakash Singh - 113

Dhara Singh - 116

Sharda Prasad Shukla - 115

Ram Bhajan Prajapati - 107

Ravi Shankar - 108

Prem Chandra - 105

Krishna Kumar - 118

9. It is also said that reservation for Ex-servicemen is horizontal. The candidates of this category have to be adjusted in the respective categories of vertical unreserved /reserved vacancies like general, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Class. Unless the Ex-servicemen would have secured marks at par with the candidates belong to the above vertical categories i.e. general, SC, ST and OBC etc., they would not qualify. The petitioners secured marks less than the marks of last selected candidate belong to general, SC, ST and OBC categories, hence they have not been selected. It is said that against 13 vacancies only one person could be selected.

10. Learned Standing Counsel reiterated the stand taken by the respondents in the counter-affidavit. Reliance has been placed by respondents on a Government Order dated 30.12.1993. Paras 3 and 4 thereof reads as under:

“3¼1½ jkT; ds dk;Zdyki ls lEcfU/kr yksd lsokvksa vkSj inksa ds fy;s lh/kh HkrhZ ds izdze ij fjfDr;ksa dk ikWp izfr’kr fuEufyf[kr ds i{k esa vkjf{kr gksxk

¼,d½ 'kkjhfjd :i ls fodykax

¼nks½ Lora=rk laxzke lsukfu;ksa ds vkfJr vkSj

¼rhu½ HkwriwoZ lSfud

¼2½ mi/kkjk ¼1½ esa fofufnZ"V Jsf.k;ksa dk vyx vyx dksVk og gksxk tks jkT; ljdkj le;≤ ij vf/klwfpr vkns’k }kjk vo/kkfjr djsaA

¼3½ mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds vk/khu vkjf{kr fjfDr;ksa ij p;fur O;fDr;ksa dks mu Jsf.k;ksa esa j[kk tk;sxk] ftuls os lacfU/kr gSaA mnkgj.k ds fy;s ;fn dksbZ O;fDr vuqlwfpr tkfr Js.kh ls lEcfUèkr gSA mnkgj.k