JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Anil Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Ramesh and Sri Dharmendra Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Bharat Pratap Singh, the Additional Chief Standing Counsel along with Shri Neeraj Tripathi, Additional Advocate General on behalf of respondent no. 1 and Shri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel representing the respondent -U.P. Public Service Commission and perused the records.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the controversy involved in this matter with regard to horizontal reservation admissible to women candidates is covered in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Saurav Yadav and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others (2021) 4 SCC 542. Relevant portions of the said judgment shall be referred at appropriate place in this judgment.

3. The present writ petition has been filed by one Ajay Kumar challenging the impugned selection list published on 22.07.2004 insofar as it recommended selection in favour of Smt. Archana Jauhary and Km. Anshu Lata Sarkar, respondent nos. 4 and 5, respectively to the writ petition. Further prayer has been made for commanding the respondents to arrange the select list afresh strictly in accordance with the eligibility criteria and without giving any reservation to the women as a class and with further mandamus commanding the respondents not to make any appointment pursuant to the recommendations made by the respondent -Commission on the post of Assistant Registrar pursuant to the advertisement in question.

4. The submission of Shri Anil Tiwari is to the effect that the U.P. Public Service Commission advertised 14 vacancies of Assistant Registrars in the year 2000 and insofar as horizontal reservation is concerned, it was provided that two posts shall remain reserved for women category candidates as per the Government Orders applicable which provided 20% reservation in that regard. He submits that out of 14 posts, 7 posts were of open category candidates and, therefore, if 20% reservation is applied for women, the said calculation would go to 1.4 which, when rounded off, would go to 1 (one). He further submits that only one post out of 7 could have been filled up by offering selection/appointment to a single woman whereas, the respondents have finalized selection in favour of respondent nos. 4 and 5, i.e., 2 women by making wrong calculation of 20% of 14 vacancies, i.e., 2.8 which would come to 2 (two) and, therefore, instead of applying reservation on the basis of compartmentalization, two posts have been wrongly filled up.

5. In support of his contention, reference to various authorities has been made by Sri Anil Tiwari and it has been contended that after the Full Bench of this Court decided the issue of reservation vide its judgment dated 16.07.2019 in this very petition, the matter reached up to Supreme Court where, not only the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court was considered but also the judgments on the same issue pronounced by the High Courts of Rajasthan, Bombay, Uttrakhand and Gujarat were discussed at length and final judgment was passed in the case of Saurav Yadav (supra).

6. Shri Anil Tiwari has placed reliance upon paragraph nos. 24, 27, 28, 40 and 43 of the said judgment which are reproduced herein below:-

"24. The view taken by the High Courts of Rajasthan, Bombay, Uttarakhand and Gujarat is thus contrary to the one that weighed with the High Court of Allahabad. Apart from the orders referred to in paras 11 to 13 hereinabove, the Full Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in Ajay Kumar v. State of U.P. held:-

"94. For the aforesaid, to our mind, inter se merit of women has no role to play in the implementation of horizontal reservation as the socially reserved candidate (SC, ST, & OBC) seeking benefit of reservation of special category (women) cannot claim adjustment in open category."

27. The High Courts of Rajasthan, Bombay, Uttarakhand, and Gujarat have adopted the same principle