VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record.
(2.) AT the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel agree that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is fully covered by a decision of this Court dated 23.2.2015 passed in writ petition no. 10590 of 2015 (Khajan Singh vs. State of U.P. and others).
(3.) THE said judgement dated 23.2.2015 is quoted hereinunder: - "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the writ petition is being disposed of finally at this stage in terms of the Rules of the Court. The petitioner was a candidate for selection and appointment on the post of Constable. An advertisement was issued by the U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board on 17 February 2009 calling the applications for selection on the post of Constables. The final result was declared on 17 May 2010. The said selection was challenged in a batch of writ petitions inter alia on the ground of wrong application of horizontal reservation in respect of twenty percent reservation for the female Other Backward Class (OBC) candidates. The Writ Petition No. 38299 of 2010 (Rajeev Kumar v. State of U.P. and others) was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 5 July 2010. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the candidate preferred Special Appeal No. 1120 of 2010, Rajeev Kumar v. State of U.P. and others. In the said special appeal, a Division Bench of this Court found that twenty percent reservation for women has been wrongly applied, whereby excess number of female candidates under the OBC Category have been selected. Accordingly, the Division Bench allowed the special appeal by order dated 3 August 2010, and remitted the matter to the appropriate authority for consideration afresh. Some candidates preferred Writ Petition No. 38524 of 2010 (Matin Rao and Another v. State of U.P. and others) and Writ Petition 38526 of 2010 (Pankaj Kumar v. State of U.P. and others) in respect of same selection. But in the said cases an additional point with respect to six questions which were found to be wrong, was raised. The Court found that the respondents had adopted a wrong method by distributing the marks of the wrong questions, and for the said reason the learned Single Judge issued certain directions in the following terms: "(1) The respondents shall draw a final merit list of OBC category candidates on the basis of evaluation of marks awarding 1.25 marks against each correct question to all the candidates in the written examination and extend the benefit of 7.50 marks admissible against six wrong questions equally to all and accordingly draw the overall merit list of selected candidates for appointment and determination of seniority as per rules. (2) The respondents shall restrict the appointment of female category candidates to the extent of 20% vacancies i.e. 1809 and filling up of vacancies beyond this percentage shall stand de hors the law and being impermissible is liable to be dispensed with so far as the advertisement in question is concerned. (3) The vacancies remaining unfilled due to shortfall of candidates in other categories of horizontal reservation i.e. freedom fighter, ex -servicemen and home guard may be filled up from amongst OBC candidates as per their overall merit drawn in terms of the direction no.1 issued herein above. " In respect of other dispute regarding reservation, the learned Single Judge has followed the direction of the Division Bench in Rajeev Kumar . Accordingly, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions vide order dated 23.12.2014. The petitioner has moved this writ petition for compliance of the orders of this Court in the case of Rajeev Kumar and Matin Rao . It is submitted that the respondents have re -determined the cut of marks of the OBC category which is 110.833. Learned Standing Counsel, on the instructions, submits that the concerned Department has taken a decision to prefer a special appeal against the directions of the learned Single Judge in Matin Rao . Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the orders of this Court passed in Writ -A Nos. 64630 of 2014 (Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. and others) and 6931 of 2015 (Gajendra Singh v. State of U.P. and others), wherein this Court in the similar facts has disposed of the writ petitions in the light of the directions contained in the Division Bench judgement in Rajeev Kumar . The Court has issued certain directions to redetermine the distribution of the marks for the wrong questions and has also directed the authorities to award 7.5 marks to all the candidates and a direction was issued to re -determine the merit list accordingly. The petitioner claims that in case 7.5 marks, as directed by this Court, are awarded to him he would be in the merit list. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that calling the respondents will not serve any purpose in view of the controversy involved in the matter. Accordingly, to meet the end of justice, the writ petition is disposed of by issuing a direction to the second respondent to consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass order in accordance with law expeditiously. No order as to costs." Consequently, the present petition is also disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement dated 23.2.2015 as quoted above.;