Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—The Four petitioners who have come to this Court by way of this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are aspirants for the post of Constable in Civil Police (hereinafter referred to as “C.P.”), Fireman and Provincial Armed Constabulary (hereinafter referred to as “P.A.C.”), for which, an advertisement/requisition has been published by Uttar Pradesh Police (Recruitment and Promotion Board) vide notification dated 20.6.2013 with respect to 35,500 vacancies of Constable, C.P., 4033 vacancies for Constable, P.A.C. and 2077 vacancies for Fireman. Out of above, 17750 vacancies are unreserved for Constable, C.P. while in P.A.C. and Fire services 2016 and 1038 vacancies are unreserved. Rest of the vacancies are reserved for different categories as mentioned in paragraphs No. 2, 3 and 4 of the advertisement/notification which reads as under :

2. Besides above, other kinds of reservations are also provided, like, ‘’dependents of freedom fighters’ etc. They are horizontal. However, the same are not in dispute in this matter.

3. Petitioners have applied, pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, as stated in para 6 of the writ petition. They have assailed huge number of vacancies reserved for O.B.C., S.C. and S.T., on the ground that representation of these categories is extremely higher in the State service, including that of police, therefore, continuation of reservation for them is unconstitutional. In alternative, it is stated that the State Government without looking into the level of representation of various classes constituting O.B.C., S.C. and S.T., in a mechanical manner, is continuing with reservation, irrespective of the fact whether their representation has gone much beyond the required level i.e. adequate representation. Reliance has been placed on M. Nagrajan and others v. Union of India and others, (2006) 8 Supreme 89; Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India and others, 2008 (3) Supreme Today 491 and Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sanjeev Kumar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2007 (2) ESC 1042. It is argued that that continuation of reservation in civil services in respect of persons of reserved classes in such service has now entered into realm of colourbale exercise of power, malice and mala fide and is also sheer political exploitation without looking to strict Constitutional requirements in this regard.

4. In the Supplementary-affidavit, a report dated 31.8.2001 of Social Justice Committee has been appended to demonstrate representation of different classes in civil posts, as found at that point of time, to fortify that continuance of reservation in respect of certain classes, highly represented, is unconstitutional.

5. Sri S. P. Gupta, learned Advocate General, though found a bit handicapped for himself, due to the lapse on the part of respondents in not filing counter-affidavit, despite opportunity given to them, however, opposed application for interim order, contending as follows :

(i) The community-wise census is under process at the level of Government of India. The aforesaid body having been appointed by Government of India, the State Government has no role to play. Unless and until a report of the said body is available, current/present status of population, showing different classes included in the list of O.B.C., S.C., S.T., cannot be ascertained. Therefore, adequacy of representation in civil services also cannot be ascertained as on date.

(ii) Adequacy of representation though has not been defined, but it cannot be cumulative for all services, but will have to be with respect to different services, individually as well as collectively. So long as exercise of community-wise census is not complete, the correct figures cannot be worked out at this stage. Therefore, the State is justified in continuing with the reservation without any tinkering therein.

(iii) Similar matter came up before this Court in special appeal No. 910 of 2005 in wh