Om Prakash, J. - (1.) This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to give the benefit of reservation for 'kushal Khilari' i.e., outstanding sportsmen in the selection for the post of Sub-Inspector in Uttar Pradesh Civil Police direct cadre, 1982, and allow the petitioner to join the Police training college and thereafter absorb him in that service, without any loss of seniority or other benefits. It is admitted case that the recruitment for the post of Sub-Inspectors of Police was made, by the respondent No. 2, for which competitive examination was held on 28/29 March, 1982, in the examination hall of the Public Service Commission, U.P. Allahabad. The petitioner was also a candidate in the said examination. It is averred in Paragraph 7 of the writ petition that the respondent No. 1 vide Government order No. B-52/H-4/74-Niyukti-4, dated 11-2-1975 (Annexure 1 to the Writ petition) (hereinafter referred to as the G.O. of 1975) provided reservation of 1% in category III of such State Government services, which are not filled through the Public Service Commission for the outstanding sport. The said G.O. came into force with immediate effect. The petitioner applied for the post of Sub-Inspector claiming the benefit of reservation, provided for outstanding sportsman in the G.O. of 1975. In Paragraph 3 of the Writ petition, the petitioner claimed that he had taken part in three inter-University boxing tournaments representing the Allahabad University and attached certified copies of the testimonial to his application in support of the fact that he was on outstanding sportsman. It is averred that the petitioner having qualified in the physical efficiency test was called for Written test. There were about 1080 total vacancies of Sub-Inspectors in the competitive examination of 1982. The claim of the petitioner is that on the basis of 1% reservation for outstanding sport man, about 11 posts should have been reserved for outstanding sportsman. The contention is that besides the petitioner, there was only one more candidate, namely, Km. Saroj Shukla, claiming the benefit of such reservation. There being total reservation of 11 posts for outstanding sportsmen on the basis of 10 quota and only two candidates having applied in the category of outstanding sportsmen, the petitioner stated that he should have been selected without any opposition for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. It is claimed that the G.O. of 1975 was never superseded until the declaration of the result after interview and, therefore, aright to claim benefit of reservation for outstanding sportsmen was vested in him. The petitioner, however, was not selected and hence this writ petition.
(2.) A counter affidavits was filed on behalf of the respondents. The short contention of the respondent is that the G.O. of 1975 was superseded by the later G.O. No. 2033/XXXX RA EK1 6/11/77, date 20-8-1977 (Annexure CA IV to the counter affidavit) (for short the G.O. of 1977) in so far as it relates 1% reservation for outstanding sportsmen. In paragraph 3 of the aforesaid G.O. of 1975, it is stated that all the earlier Government orders issued from time to time in regard to reservation of post for all categories would be deemed to have been amended to the extent mentioned in the G.O. of 1977. The G.O. of 1975 to the extent it, admittedly, provided reservation of 1% to outstanding sportsmen having been superseded by the G.O. of 1977 it is averred in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of reservation. It is stated that the petitioner was always treated as general candidate and that he was not selected: as his performance in the competitive examination was poor.
(3.) The short question for consideration in this case is whether the reservation of 1% provided under the G.O. of 1975 to outstanding sportsmen continued to remain inforce even after August, 1977, when the G.O. of 1977 came into force. Undisputedly, reservation of 1% was declared for outstanding sportsmen vide G.O. of 1975. The contention of the respondent is that the G.O. of 1975, in so far as it provided reservation to the outstanding sportsmen for class ill services, which are not filed through the Public Service Commission, was superseded by the G.O. of 1977, dated 20-8-1977 that came into force with immediate effect. There is no dispute that the post of Sub-Inspector of Police comes in Category III of the State Services and it is not filed in by the Public Service Commission, but the respondent No. 2 is responsible for holding examination for the same. Annexure 1 to the writ petition and Annexure V-A III to the counter affidavit are the G.Os of 1975 and there is no difference between the two. Before giving reply to the above formulated question, it would be apposite to analyse the G.O. of 1975.;