HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 12209 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party No.1 and Mr. R. K. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 2. Petitioner has been filed challenging advertisement dated 16.09.2025. Further prayer for a direction to opposite parties to re-calculate reservation in accordance with judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney and U.P. Reservation Act, 1994 has also been sought. 3. It has been submitted that a bare perusal of impugned advertisement will indicate that maximum percentage of 50% required for reservation has been exceeded by opposite parties since a total number of 182 posts have been advertised in which only 27 posts have been indicated as Unreserved while 67 posts are reserved under Scheduled Caste quota, 9 posts under Scheduled Tribe quota and 61 posts under Other Backward Caste (OBC) quota have been indicated with horizontal reservation also being provided. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand and others, Civil Appeal No(s). 13950-13951 of 2024. 5. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 however has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that reservation quota is required to be indicated as per cadre-strength and not vacancies which are advertised. He has also placed reliance on judgment Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shiv Sinha, Raghunath Dubey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Raj Kumar Upadhyaya (R.K.Upadhyaya) Ashish Kumar Tiwari .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Personnel And Another .....Respondent(s) rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. K Sabharwal and others v. State of Punjab and others [(1995) 2 SCC 745]. 6. Upon consideration of submissions of learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that advertisement has indicated number of vacancies under reservation as described here-in-above. The entire aspect has been adjudicated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K.Sabharwal and others (supra) in the following manner:- "6. The expressions 'posts' and 'vacancies', often used in the executive instructions providing for reservations, are rather problematical. The word 'post' means an appointment, job, office or employment. A position to which a person is appointed. 'Vacancy' means an unoccupied post or office. The plain meaning of the two expressions make it clear that there must be a 'post' in existence to enable the 'vacancy' to occur. The cadre-strength is always measured by the number of posts comprising the cadre. Right to be considered for appointment can only be claimed in cadre. As a consequence the percentage of reservation has to be worked out in relation to the number of posts which form the cadre-strength. The concept of 'vacancy' has no relevance in operating the percentage of reservation." 7. In view thereof, it is quite evident that reservation is required to be taken in the context of cadre-strength and the concept of vacancy has no relevance in operating percentage of reservation. 8. A bare perusal of case of Amrit Yadav (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner does not indicate anything contrary to law enunciated in the case of R. K. Sabharwal and others (supra). 9. In view thereof, no good ground is made out for granting indulgence. 10. Petition therefore fails and is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. October 15, 2025 lakshman WRIA No. 12209 of 2025 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench