Neutral Citation No. - 2016:AHC-LKO:17298 AFR Reserved on:26.05.2016 Delivered on:24.08.2016 Court No. - 10 (1) Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 5158 of 2015 Petitioner :- Abhishek Kumar Singh & 3 Ors.

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. & Ors.

Counsel for Petitioner :- Vidhu Bhushan Kalia,Ankit Pande,Birendra Pratap Singh,Laxmi Kant Pathak,Rajat Rajan Singh,Ravi Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhishek Bose,Amit Bose,Dr L P Mishra,P.D.Verma,Pushkar Baghel,Vijay Kumar &

(2) Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 6395 of 2015 Petitioner :- Atul Verma & 7 Ors.

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. & Ors.

Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishu Bhushan Kalia Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

&

(3) Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 3239 of 2016 Petitioner :- Ajay Sinha And 24 Ors.

Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Deptt.Of Home Govt.Of Up & Ors.

Counsel for Petitioner :- Vidhu Bhushan Kalia,Rajat Rajan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.

This is a bunch of writ petitions involving similar facts and issues relating to a challenge to the select list dated 25.06.2015 pertaining to selection to the post of Sub Inspector Civil Police and Platoon Commander held in pursuance to an advertisement issued on 19.05.2011 and also a challenge to paragraph 4 of the Government order dated 24.03.1994.

For convenience writ petition no. 5158 (SS) of 2015 has been treated as the leading writ petition and the facts mentioned hereinafter are based on its records.

Learned Advocate General initially contended that hearing of the matter be deferred on account of the reference made by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ-A No. 40695 of 2005 (Ajay Kumar vs. State of U.P. And others) as to what should be the mechanism for application of horizontal reservation in respect of various categories provided therein namely women, dependents of freedom fighter /physically handicapped etc. in the State of U.P. noticing a conflict in the ratio of Rajeev Kumar vs State of U.P. reported in (2010) 7 SCC 708. As this pleas was negatived by a Coordinate Bench while deciding the case of Writ-A 37599 of 2015 (Ashish Kumar Pandey and others vs. State of U.P. and others) which has been upheld in Special Appeal and the mechanism for horizontal reservation is already mentioned in rule 3(3) of the Act, 1993 and clause 2.5 of the Instructions Manual as also the Government orders on the subject, including women reservation, and as the grounds of challenge in these petitions go beyond the question of application of horizontal reservation, therefore, this Court does not find any reason to defer the hearing of these writ petitions.

The selection in question was regulated by the Rules known as U.P. Sub-

Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Service Rules of 2008). As per the said Rules the selection was to comprise of a Physical Standard test [Rule 15(c)]; Preliminary Written test [(Rule 15(d)]; Physical Efficiency Test [Rule 15(e)], Main written examination [Rule 15 (f); Group Discussion (Rule 15(g); Tentative Select List [Rule 15(h)]; Medical Test [Rule 15(i)]; and Character verification [Rule15(j)]. Thereafter the appointment orders were to be issued. The physical standard test, preliminary written test, physical efficiency test, were to be of a qualifying nature and their marks were not to be added in the final merit.

Preliminary written test was to comprise of 200 marks. The candidate was required to secure 50% marks in the said test in order to be successful and for being called for the Physical Efficiency Test. In the physical efficiency test the male candidates were required to complete a run of 4.8 kilometers in 35 minutes female candidates were required to complete a run of 2.4 kilometers in 20 minutes. The main written examination was to comprise of 400 marks in various subjects and minimum fifty percent marks in each subject was necessary for being eligibl