Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:58252 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4990 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rakesh Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Charan Tripathi,V.K. Agnihotri Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for change in the final result pursuant to the selection held under the advertisement dated 23.12.2023 for recruitment of Constable in Police Department and has also further questioned the procedure for recruitment given under the advertisement vide Clause-4 of the Government Order dated 25.03.1994, according to which if a candidate of reserved quota competes on merit with the candidate of unreserved category and his merit matches within such reserved category candidate despite the fact that such candidate had been given benefit of age relaxation in a particular reservation category. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for the State on the contrary submits that this controversy is no more res integra as the Supreme Court has already upheld the decision of the State Government to consider reserved category candidate in unreserved category if there merit falls within the last cut off of the merit of general candidate in the judgment of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and others: (1992) Supp(3) SCC 217 and Saurav Yadav v. State of U.P. and others: (2021) 4 SCC 542. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record I find that the prayer no.1 to be dependent upon prayer no.2 being granted and since the Supreme Court has already upheld the stand of the Government to place reserved category candidate in unreserved category if they secure more than the cut off in the general category marks then the candidate of general category, this Court in propriety cannot interfere with the Government Order as it amount to sitting in appeal over and above the verdict of the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney (Supra) vide paragraph 811 has held thus: "811. In this connection it is well to remember that the reservations under Article 16(4) do not operate like a communal reservation. It may well happen that some members belonging to, say Scheduled Castes get selected in the open competition field on the basis of their own merit; they will not be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes; they will be treated as open competition candidates." 5. In the case of Saurav Yadav (Supra) vide paragraph 66, the Court has held thus: "I would conclude by saying that reservations, both vertical and horizontal, are method of ensuring representation in public services. These are not to be seen as rigid "slots", where a candidate's merit, which otherwise entitles her to be shown in the open general category, is foreclosed, as the consequence would be, if the state's argument is accepted. Doing so, would result in a communal reservation, where each social category is confined within the extent of their reservation, thus negating merit. The open category is open to all, and the only condition for a candidate to be shown in it is merit, regardless of whether reservation benefit of either type is available to her or him." 6. Thus, petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 21.4.2025 Deepika Digitally signed by :- DEEPIKA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- DEEPIKA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad