- (1.) The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, Allahabad (The Commission) issued an advertisement on 11 January 2016 notifying the Combined State/Upper Subordinate Services (General/Special Recruitment) Examination 2016. The selection is in two parts comprising of a preliminary written examination and a final main examination. The applications were to be submitted online on the official website of the Commission. The petitioner submitted her online application form on 4 February 2016 and appeared in the preliminary examination on 20 March 2016, in which the petitioner secured 112 marks in general study first paper. The name of the petitioner does not find place in the list of successful candidates. The Commission has notified the cut off marks under various categories according to which, the cut off marks for the category&Ex. Army Personnel domiciled in U.P. was 110 marks. The case of the petitioner is that she is a domicile of U.P. and had served as Lieutenant Nursing Officer with the Army for a period of five years on a short service commission followed by release from the service by order dated 28 March 2007. The petitioner claims that she is an Ex Army Personnel domiciled in U.P. and was, therefore, entitled to the benefit of 5% reservation stipulated for such category. It is urged that the petitioner having secured 112 marks, which is more than the cut off marks for the said category (110 marks) is entitled to participate in the next stage of selection i.e. the main examination to be held from today. However, since she is not being permitted to appear in the main examination. The instant petition has been filed seeking a mandamus directing the respondent authorities to treat the petitioner as an Ex Army Personnel domiciled in U.P. and permit her to appear in the main examination.
(2.) On 6 July 2016, this Court required learned counsel for the Commission to obtain instructions in the matter. In pursuance thereof, learned counsel has received instructions from the Commission and which have been placed before us. According to the instruction the petitioner was not given the benefit of 5% quota reserved for Ex Army Personnel domiciled in U.P., as she had not claimed such benefit in the application form, having mentioned "No" in Item no.15 (a) meant for that purpose. On the other hand, she had claimed the benefit of age relaxation by filling Item no.15 (b) by stating that she had been in short service commission of the Army for a period of five years.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Item no.15 (a) which sought information as to 'whether you are U.P. Ex. Army?' is wholly unintelligible. There is no such thing as U.P. Ex. Army, as there is only one Army in the country&the Indian Army and thus, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of being an Ex Army Personnel on account of having filled Item no.15 (a) in the negative. The second limb of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a combined reading of the disclosures made by the petitioner in Item no.9 read with Item no.15 (b) would make it clear that the petitioner was an Army Personnel and is domiciled in U.P. It is submitted that the aforesaid information is all that was required for extending the benefit of the reservation meant for Ex. Army Personnel domiciled in U.P. The Commission could have ascertained these facts from a combined reading of Item no.9 and 15 (b). Learned counsel for the Commission, however, submitted that the Commission committed no illegality in not giving any benefit to the petitioner as an U.P. Ex-Army as she has not claimed it in the application form.;