Hon’ble R.K. Agrawal, J.—By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issue of a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the office memorandum dated 22.10.2007 issued by the Secretary, (Appointment), Anubhag-4, U.P. Government, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, respondent No. 1, filed as Annexure 8 to the writ petition as also a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamuscommanding the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for her appointment on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) on unfilled vacancies under General Woman Category in 2003 examination in accordance with law and to appoint the petitioner on the said post and other consequential reliefs.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:

3. The U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) issued an advertisement No A-2/E-1/2003 published in the Employment News dated 22/28.11.2003 inviting applications for 347 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division). In the advertisement so issued 73 vacancies were reserved for Scheduled Castes candidates of U.P., 07 vacancies were reserved for Scheduled Tribes candidates of U.P., 94 vacancies were reserved for Other Backward Class candidates of U.P. and 173 vacancies were allotted to General candidates. It was further mentioned in the advertisement that two percent reservation benefit shall be given to Dependants of Freedom Fighter candidates of U.P. and one percent reservation benefit shall be given to Ex-Army Personnel of U.P. according to the provisions of G.O. No. 18/1/95-Ka-2/1995T.C..-1/97 dated 20.9.1997. So far as reservation for women was concerned it was provided that according to Rule 8 of U.P. Judicial Service Rules, 2001 (hereafter referred to as the Rules), the reserved vacancies for woman of U.P. shall be subject to the decision in S.L.P. No. 15768 of 2001 (Manjula Sircar v. Harendra Bahadur Singh) and other connected appeals by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

4. The petitioner being eligible and fully qualified for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) also applied. She qualified in the preliminary examination conducted by the Commission and thereafter appeared in the main written examination and was declared successful. An interview letter was issued by the Commission informing the petitioner that the interview would be held on 21st April, 2005. The petitioner appeared in the interview. The Commission declared the final result on 2nd May, 2005 and the name of the petitioner was placed at serial No. 177 in the select list. According to the petitioner she was waiting for the appointment letter to be issued in her favour but in the meantime some of the candidates challenged the result of the final selection before this Court by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40058 of 2005 (Dinesh Pratap Singh and another v. State of U.P. and others) in which this Court directed that the candidates who were less than upper age limit on 1st July, 2003 would also be eligible to appear at 2003 recruitment, however, the candidates who have crossed upper age limit according to their categories on 1st July, 2003 would not be eligible under second proviso to Rule 10 of the Rules. The matter was taken up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malik Mazahar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission, 2006(3) ADJ 621 (SC). The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 3rd April, 2006 allowed the appeal and had held that age requirement therein would be as on 1st July, 2002 and not as on 1st July, 2004 in view of Rule-4 (m) read with Rule 10 of second proviso of the Rules. Pursuant to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malik Mazahar Sultan, 2006(3) ADJ 621 (SC), the select list was revised. According to the petitioner the total number of 10 candidates including 2 candidates whose result were withheld earlier wer