Hon'ble Siddharth, J.

Heard Shri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Q.H. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed the above noted writ petition, praying for the following reliefs:-

"i. Issue a writ or direction or pass an order in the nature of Certiorari quashing/ modifying the final select list published in June,2015, furnished upon the petitioner vide information dated 27.11.2015, by the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam to the extent it ignores the consideration of the petitioner's name based upon his merit and the reservation applicable to 2% reserved quota for the category of DEPENDENTS OF FREEDOM FIGHTERS for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) and 5% relaxation in marks obtained;

ii. Issue a writ or direction or pass an order in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) on one of the 4 vacant posts by giving due consideration to the 2% reserved quota for the category of DEPENDENTS OF FREEDOM FIGHTERS and 5% relaxation in marks obtained.

iii. Issue a writ or direction or pass an order in the nature of Mandamus restraining the respondent- corporation for filling up 4 vacant posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) in pursuance of the selection finalized in pursuance of the advertisement dated 03.10.2013 or otherwise.

iv. Issue any other suitable writ or direction or pass an order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit or proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; and

v. Award costs of the writ petition to the petitioner."

3. The petitioner belongs to the category of "Dependents of Freedom Fighters" (General) and in response to an advertisement dated 03.10.2013, by the U.P.Jal Nigam, he applied for the post of Junior Engineers (Civil). The petitioner appeared in Written Examination in the year 2014 and only 5 candidates belonging to the category of the petitioner aforesaid were called upon to appear in Interview.

4. The petitioner is not aggrieved by the selection of 5 persons, but is aggrieved by his exclusion from the zone of consideration inasmuch as, as per law, 2% seats were required to be reserved for the "Dependents of Freedom Fighters". The total seats advertised were 469 and 2% thereof comes to 9.38, hence 9 posts were required to be reserved for the aforesaid category, but only 5 candidates were invited for interview and all of them were selected.

5. A Counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3, U.P. Jal Nigam and its Chief Engineer, respectively, stating that in the Written Examination, the cut off marks for qualifying for interview was fixed as 42, but the petitioner obtained only 34 marks, therefore he was not called for interview and the remaining 4 posts remained unfilled. As per Section-3(5) of U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act 1997, when suitable candidates are not found the vacancies are carried over to the next recruitment.

6. The petitioner has filed his Rejoinder Affidavit stating that the cut of marks of 42 was for the General Category and for the Reserved Category, it should have been lowered and the respondents have acted against the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Indira Sawhney Vs. Union of India, 1992, Suppl. (3) SCC 217.

7. The petitioner has also filed a Supplementary Rejoinder Affidavit bringing on record documents pertaining to other examinations conducted by different departments, where the cut of marks for the Reserved Category Candidates are fixed lower to the marks fixed for the General Category Candidates.

8. The petitioner has relied upon the Apex Court Judgment in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta & others Versus State of U.P. and others, 1995 AWC 1653; Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & others, (2007) 8 SCC 785; Jitendra Kumar Singh and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2010) 3 SCC 119. All these cases deal w