ORDER

Shrivastava, J. -- 1. By this petition the petitioner State Government is seeking review of the order dated 23.3.2018 passed in WA No. 138/2018.

2. Facts in nutshell are that the respondents No. 1 to 6 (writ petitioners) are serving in the Police Department of the State as Assistant Sub Inspector, Constable etc. Advertisement was issued by the respondent No.7 M.P. Professional Examination Board for the post of Subedar, Sub Inspector, Platoon Commander etc. There was compartmentalised horizontal reservation of 15% of the posts for police personnel serving in the police department. These 15% posts were sprayed over in the unserved SC/ST & OBC category by way of compartmentalised horizontal reservation. Respondents No.1 to 6 had applied under the OBC police personnel category and had accordingly participated in the selection process. They were not selected, hence they had filed the writ petition raising the grievance that they had secured more marks than the marks of the last candidate in the open general category, therefore, they were entitled to selection.

3. Learned Single Judge by the order dated 24.10.2017 had noted that the respondents No. 1 to 6 who fall under the OBC Police Personnel category, had obtained more marks than the cut off marks of general category candidate (Police Personnel), therefore, they were entitled to appointment. Hence while allowing the writ petition the Single Judge had directed the respondents to revise the result and to take all consequential steps keeping in view the marks obtained by petitioners and by ignoring the fact that they are members of OBC. The Division Bench by order dated 23.3.2018 had dismissed the Writ Appeal No.138/2018 and had affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge. Against the order of the Division Bench SLP (Civil) Diary No.26616/18 was preferred, which is dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 17.8.2018 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with liberty to file the review petition by observing as under :

“It was submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State that relying upon the decision dated 3.6.2010 of this Court in C.A. No. 5987/2007 titled as Public Service Commission Uttaranchal v. Mamta Bisht & others [2010(12) SCC 204] that for the category of police personnels, it was a horizontal reservation. High Court has failed to consider this vital aspect. Thus, the police personnel could not have claimed the post of general category, since it was horizontal reservation for them. This aspect has not been considered in the impugned order, as such, we grant liberty to the petitioner to file review of the petition in accordance with law.

The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. Liberty is also granted to assail impugned order after decision of review petition in this Court in case necessity arises.”

4. In view of the above order and liberty granted by the Hon’ble Court, the issue is required to be decided keeping in view the fact that reservation for police personnel was horizontal reservation.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the reservation for OBC (Police Personnel) was horizontal compartmentalised reservation, therefore, the persons belonging to the said category are not entitled for consideration under the open general category. He further submits that this Court while deciding writ appeal has committed an error in treating it to be a case of vertical reservation, whereas it is a case of horizontal reservation and respondents No. 1 to 6 are not entitled to migrate to the open general category.

6. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 6 has submitted that it is not a case of horizontal reservation but it is a case of vertical reservation and therefore, the respondents are entitled to appointment against the general category posts on the basis of their merit. He has further submitted that respondents No. 1 to 6 have not claimed the benefit of any age relaxa