HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 10964 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Mr. Rishabh Raj, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party no.1 and Mr. Ravi Shankar Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite parties no.2 and 3. 2. Petition has been filed challenging the screening result dated 25.08.2025 and the advertisement dated 14.06.2023 to the extent of non-application of reservation quota for physically handicapped and other handicapped candidates. Further prayer for a direction to opposite parties to declare result after ensuring implementation of Section 3 of U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-serviceman) Act, 1993 and for permitting petitioner to participate in the interview has also been sought. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that advertisement has been issued for 26 posts of Medical Officers (Unnani) and has thereafter referred to the Act of 1993 to submit that reservation for physically handicapped and dependents of freedom fighter and ex-serviceman was required to be made in the advertisement, which has not been done and therefore the advertisement to that extent is in violation of the Act of 1993. 4. It is submitted that in similar circumstances, Writ A No.10603 of 2025, Dr. Mohd. Akmal and four others versus State of U.P. & Ors. was filed and was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 12.09.2025 granting liberty Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ram Raj, Rishabh Raj Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Raj Kumar Upadhyaya (R.K.Upadhyaya) Arfa Begum .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Ayush (Unani) Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) to petitioners therein to participate in the recruitment process and the interviews in the light of judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Yadav versus State of Jharkhand and Ors.; Civil Appeal No.13950-13951 of 2024. 5. It is submitted that in pursuance thereof, petitioner is entitled for similar benefits. 6. Learned counsel for opposite parties no.2 and 3 has raised a preliminary objection with regard to grievance of petitioner with the submission that advertisement admittedly was issued on 14.06.2023 whereafter the process of interviews has already been completed on 12.09.2025. It is submitted that granting relief to petitioner would open a pandoras box and would derail the entire process of recruitment. 7. He has placed reliance on judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rekha Sharma versus Rajasthan High Court, (Jodhpur); AIR Online 2024 SC 565. 8. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that advertisement for the aforesaid posts had been issued on 14.06.2023 and admittedly the process of interviews for the said posts has already been completed on 12.09.2025. It is also evident that certain other persons had approached this Court by filing of Writ A No.10603 of 2025 primarily on the ground that advertisement was not in consonance with judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Yadav (supra) which provided for reservation in terms of U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Casts, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994. It is evident from the aforesaid judgment and order dated 12.09.2025 passed in the said Writ Petition that liberty was granted to the petitioners therein to be included in the process of interview primarily on the ground that the interview process was still underway and it was also directed that liberty was being granted as a special case, which was not to be treated as precedent. 9. In the present case, it is evident that despite more than two years having passed for issuance of the advertisement, petitioner has failed to exercise her rights to approach this Court and has filed this writ petition belatedly after WRIA No. 10964 of 2025 2 completion of interview process. This aspect has been considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rekha Sharma (supra) in the following manner: "16. As well settled, the candidates who consciously took part in the process of selection cannot be permitted to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the respondents for making selection, on their having been declared as unsuccessful in the Preliminary Examinations. The appellants after they having found that their names do not appear in the list of successful candidates of Preliminary Examination, could not have questioned the result on the ground that the respondents had not declared the cut off marks for the Persons with benchmark disabilities. As stated earlier, the respondents have declared the cut off marks for the persons falling under Compartmentalised Horizontal Reservation and not for the Overall Horizontal Reservation under which the appellants fall. Such action could neither be said to be arbitrary nor violative of Article 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India." 10. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgment in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that petitioner had ample opportunity of almost two years to challenge the Advertisement dated 14.06.2023 and has approached this Court only after directions were issued by this Court in the case of Dr. Mohd. Akmal & Ors. (supra). Clearly the petitioner comes within category of a fence sitter and would also be barred from maintaining this petition in terms of judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rakha Sharma (supra). 11. In the considered opinion of this Court, granting indulgence to petitioner would amount to re-opening of pandoras box which may derail the entire recruitment process. 12. In view thereof, this Court does not find any good ground to grant any indulgence. The petition therefore fails and is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. September 16, 2025 Subodh/- WRIA No. 10964 of 2025 3 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench