Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—The cardinal question in all these special appeals revolves around the issue of reservation of posts for Other Backward Class, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women candidates and Sportsmen. Although the learned counsels for the parties have advanced submissions from different angles, raising different issues but with the common objective to get more vacancies available for general candidates, yet the submissions are mostly overlapping and the reference to case law being common, we have heard all these appeals together and are deciding by this common judgment.

2. In all these appeals except Special Appeal No. 592 of 2006, 1285 of 2002 and 910 of 2005, the petitioner-appellants have assailed the judgment dated 22nd May, 2002 of Hon’ble Single Judge (Hon’ble Ashok Bhusan, J.) to the extent the Writ Petition Nos. 25328 of 2001, 26847 of 2001, 36411 of 2001, 28836 of 2001, 26177 of 2001, 34039 of 2001, 4630 of 2001, 32763 of 2001, 27849 of 2001, 27060 of 2001, 29069 of 2001 and 47528 of 2002 have been dismissed whereby the petitioner appellants were seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to sent them for training to the post of Sub-Inspector. In some of the writ petitions relief for quashing of the select list was also sought but it has also been declined.

3. In Special Appeal No. 592 of 2006 the respondent-appellant has assailed the aforesaid judgment assailing it only to the extent the Hon’ble Single Judge has issued a mandamus to the respondent-appellants to fill up vacancies against 2% sports quota from the aforesaid selection itself.

4. Special Appeal No. 1285 of 2002 filed by petitioner-respondent arises out of the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by Hon’ble Single Judge (Hon’ble R.K. Agarwal, J.) dismissing writ petition No. 47528 of 2002 following the judgment dated 22nd May, 2002 of Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J. in writ petition No. 25326 of 2001 and others connected matters (supra).

5. In Special Appeal No. 910 of 2005, the petitioner-respondent has assailed the judgment dated 19th July, 2005 of Hon’ble Single Judge (Hon’ble Sunil Ambwani, J.) dismissing writ petition No. 29383 of 2001 following judgment dated 22nd May, 2002 of Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J. (supra).

6. We have heard M/s V.K.S. Chaudhary, Ravi Kiran Jain, Ashok Khare, Senior Advocates, P.S. Baghel, Advocate, S.M.A. Kazmi, Advocate General assisted by C.B. Yadav, Chief Standing Counsel and Sanjai Goswami, Standing Counsel.

Facts

7. In brief, the common undisputed facts, are that the U.P. Police Headquarter, Allahabad published an advertisement in various newspapers including daily newspaper Rashtriya Sahara dated 4.5.1999 for direct recruitment of 1634 posts of Sub Inspectors in Civil Police (in short S.I.C.P.) and Platoon Commander in PAC (in short ‘P.C.’). In all, 1231 posts for male Sub Inspectors, 148 posts for female Sub Inspectors and 255 posts for Platoon Commanders in PAC were advertised. It further provided that 2% posts are reserved for outstanding sportsmen, but for their recruitment vacancies would be separately advertised. The Government also reserved with itself a right to keep any post vacant or defer appointment. The minimum educational qualification is Graduate but for Ex-serviceman it is Intermediate or equivalent thereto. The minimum age for recruitment is 21 years and the maximum age is 25 years on the cut off date, i.e., 1.1.1999. Relaxation of age for various category of candidates in accordance with the Government Orders (hereinafter referred to as ‘G.O.’) issued from time to time was also admissible. This also included five years relaxation in age to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Class and dependents of Freedom Fighters. In respect to Ex-servicemen it provided that the period of service rendered in Army shall be reduced for computing their age, i.e., after deducting the period of service they have rendered in Army as well as three years more, if the age of such applicants is not m