HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 10289 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned State counsel for opposite party no. 1 and Mr. Ravi Shankar Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the screening result dated 25.8.2025 for the purpose of recruitment on the post of Medical Officer (Unani) advertised on 14.6.2023. 3. Primary submission of learned counsel for petitioners is that as per advertisement, 26 posts of Medical Officer (Unani) were advertised and reservation was required to be made as per existing rules. Learned counsel has thereafter adverted to the U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) Act, 1994, particularly Section 3 thereof to submit that in cases of other backward classes of citizens, a reservation of 27% is required to be given. 4. It has further been submitted that although no breakup of reservation has been indicated in advertisement but in terms of fact that with regard to addition of other vacant posts, the total vacancies were 27, at least seven posts were required to be reserved for OBC category. 5. Learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 has produced written instructions dated 4.9.2025 before this Court, copy of which is taken on record and as per which, reservation in terms of Act has already been Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ram Raj, Gokul Seth Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Raj Kumar Upadhyaya (R.K.Upadhyaya) Dr. Mohd. Akmal And 3 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Deptt. Ayush (Unani) Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) provided. The instructions indicate vacancies for 27 posts, in which 21 have been indicated as General category, 1 post for the OBC category, 3 posts reserved for the Scheduled Caste category, 2 posts for the Economically Weaker Section, and 5 posts under the women's quota, with the latter being in the horizontal category. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the aforesaid breakup is not in accordance with Section 3 of the Act. 7. However, since the advertisement has not been challenged in the present writ petition, learned counsel for petitioners seeks to withdraw the same with liberty file a fresh petition. 8. In view of above, writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn granting liberty to file a fresh. September 4, 2025 AKK WRIA No. 10289 of 2025 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench