- (1.) S. R. Singh, J. In response to the advertisement No. 5/96-97 of the U. P. Public Service Commission, inviting ap plications by 29-3-97 for 18 posts of Assis tant Tax Superintendent in U. P. (Centralised) Revenue Sendees; 14 posts of Tax Superintendent in U. P. Palika (Centralised) Subordinate Revenue Ser vices and 14 posts of Tax Superintendent in U. P. Palika (Centralised) Revenue Ser-vices; the petitioner applied for being con sidered for appointment as ex-serviceman. The facts constitutive of the grievances of the petitioner are that no posts were ear marked or reserved for ex-servicemen in any of the above categories except that it was spelt out in the advertisement that relaxation in age-limit would be admis sible for physically handicapped and Ex-army Pers6nnel. It would appear that the petitioner preferred a representation on 6-6-97 to the Secretary, Public Service Commission U. P. Allahabad followed by another representation on 28-6-97. When the representations aforestated yielded no positive orders, he filed the instant peti tion for the relief of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents inter alia to reserve one post in each of the categories of services for physically handicapped, de pendents of Freedom Fighter and Ex- ser vicemen in abidance of Public Service (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighter and Ex-servicemen) Act, 1993 (In short 'the U. P. Act No. 4 of 1993') and provide admissible relaxation in age-limit to Ex-Army Person nel, Dependents of Freedom Fighter and Physically handicapped.
(2.) IT admits of no dispute that the U. P. Act 4 of 1993 provides for reservation of posts in favour of Physically handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighter and Ex-servicemen in that according to sub- sec tion (1) of Section 3 of the Act, 5% of vacancies at the stage of direct recruitment in the Public Services and posts in connec tion with the affairs of the State, shall be reserved for Physically handicapped, De pendents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-ser vicemen. By means of notification dated 4-5- 1995 issued in exercise of powers under Section 2 (2) of the Act, the State Government notified that out of 5% horizontal reservation in favour of Physi cally handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-servicemen, there shall be reservation of 2% each in favour of Physically handicapped and De pendents of Freedom Fighters and 1% in favour of Ex-servicemen. Sri Yar Mohd. entered appearance for the petitioner and Sri VM. Sahai for the Public Service Commission who were heard at prolix length. Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 was also heard. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner canvassed that Public Ser vice Commission was under a duty to pro vide in the advertisement the percentage of vacancies reserved in favour of Physical ly handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-servicemen as stipulated in Section 3 (1) of the U. P. Act 4 of 1993. Sri V. M. Sahai contended in opposition that the Commission advertised the posts as intimated by the concerned department and since the concerned department had not indicated reservation to be made in favour of Physically handicapped, De pendents of Freedom Fighter and Ex-ser vicemen, it would have been presumptuous for the Commission to have indicated any reservation in the above categories. It was further contended by Sri Sahai that in view of the Govern ment notification dated 13th Sept. , 1993, the candidates selected against the quota reserved for Physically handicapped, De pendents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-ser vicemen had to be adjusted against general category, O. B. C. or SC/st, as the case may be and further that 5% reservation is to be actualised at the time of final selection in order of merit of the candidates judged by the Commission at the time of interview of the candidates. It also finds mention in the counter-affidavit that in the Screening Test held on 4-1-1998, the petitioner was weeded out. The result of the Screening Committee was pronounced on 7-2-1998.
(3.) IT is beyond the pale of dispute that the Commission rounds up fraction of 0. 50 or above to a full unit and ignores the fraction of less than 0. 50 for the purposes of working out the number of vacancies in the reserved category. In Brijendra Deo Misra v. Public Service Commission, U. P. (1997)1 ESC 394 (All), the Division Bench of this Court reckoned with the provisions contained in Section 3 U. P. Act 4 of 1993 and summed up the finding as under: "a combined reading of sub-section (. 1) and (3) makes it clear that the quotas of the vacancies for Physically handicapped, DFF and Ex-servicemen are to be calculated as a percent age of total number of vacancies and it is after the persons are selected against the vacancies reserved under sub-section (1), they have to be placed in the respective caste category by making necessary adjustments. " A combined reading of sub-section (1) and (3) crystallises that the quota of the vacancies for Physically handicapped, OFF and Ex-servicemen, has to be sorted out on appreciation of total number of vacancies and it is after the persons selected against the vacancies reserved under sub-section (1) that they have to be placed in the respective caste/class category for making necessary adjust ments. \nlndra Sawhneyv. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC477, the Supreme Court held as under: "there are two types of reservations, which may, for the sake of convenience, be referred to as 'vertical reservations' and 'horizontal reservations'. The reservations in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (under Article 16 (4) may be called vertical reservations whereas reservations in favour of Physically handicapped (under clause (1) of Article 16) can be referred to as horizontal reservations. Horizantal reservations cut across the vertical reservations -what is called inter- locking reser vations. To be more precise, suppose 3% of the vacancies are reserved in favour of Physically handicapped persons; this would be a reserva tion relatable to clause (1) of Article 16. The persons selected against the quota will be placed in the appropriate category if the belongs to SC category he will be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustments; similarly, if he belongs to open competition (o. c.) category, he will be placed in that category by making neces sary adjustments. Even after providing for these horizontal reservations, the percentage of reser vations in favour of backward class of citizens remains-and should remain the same. This is how these reservations are worked out in several States and there is no reason not to continue that procedure. ";