A. K. YOG, J. ( 1 ) ALL the respondents in these writ petitions are represented by Standing Counsel and Shri sudhir Agrawal, advocate. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed in some of these petitions. As agreed at the Bar, writ petition filed by Kumari Archana Mehta is treated as leading case. All the counsel, representing respective parties agreed to argue their cases on the basis of pleadings already on record and further that all these cases be decided finally at admission stage as contemplated under Rules of Court. ( 2 ) selection process adopted by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for making appointment on certain posts of Typist and Routine Grade Assistant under Allahabad High Court officers and Staff (Condition of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 (called the rules, 1976) is being challenged by means of these writ petitions under Article 226, Constitution of India. The process of selection is, however, still midway and yet to be completed. ( 3 ) THE undisputed facts, for the purposes of deciding these cases, are that the High Court issued an advertisement, which was published in Daily Newspaper on 5th November, 1989. Relevant extract of the advertisement in question has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the leading petition. Applications were invited from eligible candidates to appear in an examination for filling up 135 vacant posts of Typists/routine Grade Clerks. Total 38,479 application forms were received. Applications of 37,214 candidates were cleared, out of which 28. 694 candidates appeared in the said examination from different fifty-two centres. All examiners were called at one place. Answer books were got evaluated between 19th to 23rd February 2001, by more than hundred examiners each day under supervision of personnels deputed by Controller of Examination appointed by examination Committee, headed by a sitting Judge of the High Court. ( 4 ) SYSTEM of coding-decoding of Roll Numbers on answer-books was avoided to overcome procedural delay. Steps were, however, taken to ensure secrecy and complete sanctity of the written examination--a partial phase of the selection process. ( 5 ) SHRI V. K. Agrawal, Professor. M. L. N. R. Engineering College, Allahabad, an independent person, was appointed Controller of Examination. The examiners, on perusal of original record reveals. were invited from various educational institutions and a University. Written examination result, containing names of 818 candidates, was published in newspaper (Annexure-1 to the leading petition ). ( 5 ) SHRI V. K. Agrawal, Professor. M. L. N. R. Engineering College, Allahabad, an independent person, was appointed Controller of Examination. The examiners, on perusal of original record reveals. were invited from various educational institutions and a University. Written examination result, containing names of 818 candidates, was published in newspaper (Annexure-1 to the leading petition ). ( 6 ) AFORESAID examination procedure is sought to be assailed by the petitioners on following two counts only : first, the examination process is vitiated due to irregularities, namely : (a) failure to codify roll numbers. (b) certain candidates declared successful in written examination are from same locality, and (c) roll numbers of some of the successful candidates are in a sequence, i. e. , in chronological order. ( 7 ) THE petitioners urged upon this Court to infer from the above circumstances that it was not possible to declare written examination result within a few days considering large number of candidates (Paras 13 and 14 of the leading petition ). According to the petitioner, there has been great haste in declaring written examination result, which reflects ulterior motive and impinges upon the sanctity of the written examination. The allegations relating to the exercise of examination and its not being fairly conducted in the above context, e. g. , evaluation of answer-books in a few days, giving go-bye to mode of coding, model answers not distributed, etc. (Paras 17 to 19 of leading petition), are vague and evasive. Pleading is incomplete and without full particulars. Petitioners counsel did not seriously press this point and also finally abandoned the point. ( 8 ) MOREOVER, no circular/ guideline or rule requiring coding/ decoding of the answer-books has been brought to the notice of the Court. ( 9 ) CIRCUMSTANCES, e. g. , successful candidates belong to one locality and/or roll numbers being in sequence, cannot be a sufficient basis for vitiating the examination. Candidates belonging to one locality can obtain and submit forms together and consequently, roll numbers in sequence and, also same centre being allotted. ( 10 ) THE Court directed the respondents to produce original answer-books of aforesaid candidates and the same have been produced and perused by this Court. It is not possible, from perusal, of the books to infer, beyond doubts, use of unfair means. ( 10 ) THE Court directed the respondents to produce original answer-books of aforesaid candidates and the same have been produced and perused by this Court. It is not possible, from perusal, of the books to infer, beyond doubts, use of unfair means. ( 11 ) TAKING into account the nature of the objective part of the question paper, it cannot be said with certainty that candidates did resort to unfair means. suspicion, of a circumstance of mere strange coincidence do not provide adequate ground to arrive at the conclusion that candidates with similar answers are guilty of using unfair means or of receiving help from outside agency. An examination cannot be vitiated merely on suspicion or assumption. I find no complaint by centre Superintendent or Invigilators in these cases. ( 12 ) THE learned counsels for the petitioners admitted that the circumstances indicated in the petition alone were not sufficient to interfere with the examination particularly in absence of specific allegation of mala fide against any particular personnel involved in the process of examination or without disclosing sufficient facts regarding particular examination centre where candidates were allegedly provided outside help or having resorted to copying. Mere coincidence is not enough to draw an irresistible inference of irregularity in the process of the examination. Sometimes, truth is stranger than fiction. ( 13 ) SECOND ground of challenge by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that respondents ought to have provided for 20% women reservation under Government Order dated 26th february, 1999 (Annexure-3 to the leading writ petition ). Relevant clause of the advertisement in question dealing with reservation reads : "as per Government orders the category/categories of candidates". ( 14 ) PETITIONER of leading case submits that advertisement clearly mentioned that reservation will be made as per existing Government Orders. Since Government Order dated 26th February, 1999, in existence provides for 20% reservation for women candidates, there ought to be reservation accordingly in this selection. ( 15 ) RESPONDENTS, on the other hand, contended that advertisement in question cannot be read in isolation and it is to be read with Rules 23 and 23a of the Rule, 1976. ( 16 ) IN this context, reference be made to other provisions of the Rules. 1976. Rule 2 (n) defines appointing Authority as "the Chief Justice of the Court or such other Judge or Officers as he may direct". ( 16 ) IN this context, reference be made to other provisions of the Rules. 1976. Rule 2 (n) defines appointing Authority as "the Chief Justice of the Court or such other Judge or Officers as he may direct". Rules 8 to 15 of Part IV of the Rules, 1976, provides for sources of recruitment to class III post, including Routine Grade Clerks and Lower Division Assistants as well as qualification and method of selection. Reservation is contemplated under Rules 23 and 23a, which are reproduced below : "23. Reservation for Scheduled Castes, etc. Reservation for recruitment to the various categories of posts in the establishment in favour of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and from among disabled (Military) personnel and dependents of freedom fighters shall be in accordance with the orders issued by the Chief Justice from time to time, having due regard to the orders issued by the Governor from time to time on the subject. 23 A. Reservation of sportsmen. One per cent of vacancies in all Class III posts on the establishment of the Court shall be reserved at the stage of direct recruitment for such skilled players and sportsmen as have represented in national or international games on behalf of any state in India as whole at least for two years and in international competitions for one year or who have represented their universities at least for three years in inter Universities Tournaments organised by the inter Universities Sports Board or who have represented their schools in international Sports Meets organised by the All India Schools Sports Board in Badminton. Basket Ball, Cricket. Football. Hockey. Table Tennis, Volley Ball, Tennis, Weight Lifting, wrestling, Boxing, Judo and Rifle shooting. " ( 17 ) RULE 23, in the matter of recruitment to various categories of posts under these Rules. 1976, in the High Court establishment, confines reservation to scheduled Castes, scheduled Tribes, disabled Military personnel and dependants of freedom fighters only. Under Rule 23a, added by amendment, category of sportsmen is also included in the zone of reservation. Learned counsel for the petitioners do not dispute this position. ( 18 ) RULE 6 of the above Rules provides that in case appointing authority is other than the Chief justice, the exercise of his power shall always be subject to any general or special order of the chief Justice. Learned counsel for the petitioners do not dispute this position. ( 18 ) RULE 6 of the above Rules provides that in case appointing authority is other than the Chief justice, the exercise of his power shall always be subject to any general or special order of the chief Justice. ( 19 ) IT is also not disputed that there is a notification authorising Registrar (now designated as registrar General) wherein he has been delegated power/authority by the Chief Justice under rules, 1976. ( 20 ) THE contention of the petitioner of leading case is that as per advertisement issued by the respondents, there has to be reservation of the category/categories of candidates as per government Orders including Government Order dated 26th February, 1999, providing for 20 per cent women reservation. The argument, in substance, is that the respondents having represented reservation as per Government order (which include aforementioned Government order for women reservation), the respondents cannot deny benefit of it to women candidate. ( 21 ) FROM the original record, produced before Court to ascertain the precise process adopted before issuing advertisement in question, it transpired that the concerned authorities/officials were not ignorant of the Government order dated 26th February, 1999. There is no order of the chief Justice directly or impliedly to include women in the zone of reservation. The Chief justice, at no stage, approved or consented to include the category of women in the reservation zone. ( 22 ) THE Registrar General, on his own, could not under relevant Rules alter, modify or otherwise extend the scope of reservation. There is nothing on record to show that matter was ever brought to the notice of the Chief Justice for including women candidate in the reservation zone. On the other hand, reference to this Government Order dated 26th February, 1999, in the draft advertisement on record, was specifically omitted by correction in the final Advertisement released for publication. This omission was, therefore, intentional keeping in consonance with the Rules, 1976. ( 23 ) THE relevant clause in the advertisement (quoted above) only meant that reservation will be in favour of category/categories of candidates as per Government Orders applicable to the services in question. The advertisement is, therefore, necessarily to be read with the Rules, 1976. In other words, only such candidates can claim reservation under a Government order, if such category/categories is/are enumerated under relevant Rules. The advertisement is, therefore, necessarily to be read with the Rules, 1976. In other words, only such candidates can claim reservation under a Government order, if such category/categories is/are enumerated under relevant Rules. advertisement by itself could not over-ride or expand the scope of Rule 23 or 23a of the Rules, 1976. ( 24 ) LASTLY, Limitation Act close reading of Government order dated 26th February, 1999 (contemplating 20% women reservation) that it does not, at all apply to the facts of the instant case, as discussed hereinafter. ( 25 ) THE said Government order provides for horizontal women reservation candidates in public services under state Government. Said Government order clearly explains that if a woman candidates is selected on merit, then such a successful woman candidate shall be counted towards 20% reservation. ( 26 ) AS noticed above, the said Government order dated 26th February. 1999, is relevant where a lok Sewa (Public Service) is under "rajyadheen". i. e. , state Government. ( 27 ) THE basic question, therefore, is whether service, under the Rules, 1976, which is public service is under state Government. If these services are not under state, the said Government order shall not be at all relevant to the facts of the case in hand. ( 28 ) ARTICLES 214 to 231, under Part V of the Constitution of India deals with the High Court in the State. Article 229 deals with officers and servant and existence of a High Court. Article 229 (2) reads : "subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature of the State, the conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court shall be such as may be prescribed by rules made by the Chief Justice of the Court or by some other Judge or officer of the Court authorised by the chief Justice to make rules for the purposes : Provided that the rules made under this clause shall, so far as they relate to salaries allowances, leave or pensions, require the approval/of the governor of the State" . ( 29 ) ON the other hand, Part XIV of the Constitution deals with services under the Union and the states. Article 309 deals with recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the union or a State. ( 29 ) ON the other hand, Part XIV of the Constitution deals with services under the Union and the states. Article 309 deals with recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the union or a State. ( 30 ) ARTICLE 309, read along with Article 229 of the Constitution of India clearly shows that services under High Courts are distinct and, dealt differently. These cannot be treated as services under state. ( 31 ) THE Government order dated 26th February, 1999, on the face of it, does not provide for women reservation in the services under High Court even though the services under High Court, may be public service. The Government order contemplating 20% reservation for women candidates is thus, confined to public service under State only and it is not relevant for appointments in services under the high Court. ( 32 ) IN support of the above conclusion, reference may be made to the provisions of the Uttar pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes. Scheduled Tribes and Other backward Classes) Act. 1994, U. P. Act No. 4 of 1994. Section 2 (c) of the said Act defines public services and posts. It lays down that the expression public services and posts means the services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State and includes local authority. Co-operative Society, Board or Corporation or statutory body established by a Central or U. P. Act, which is owned and controlled by the State Government or a Government company, an educational Institution owned and controlled by the State Government or which receives grant-in-aid from the State Government. Including a University established by or under a U. P. Act (except an institution established and administered by minorities) and tn respect of which reservation was applicable by Government orders on the date of the commencement of the said act. The fact that the expression (Rajyadheen) (under State Government) has been used in the government order dated 26th February, 1999 and not in other Government orders, clearly distinguishes it and restricts its applicability to the services under state only. It does not apply to services under High Court. ( 33 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner referred to various decisions in AIR 1991 SC 2288 , 1993 (Suppl 4) SCC 377 (Para 7) and 1992 (Supp 3) SCC? It does not apply to services under High Court. ( 33 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner referred to various decisions in AIR 1991 SC 2288 , 1993 (Suppl 4) SCC 377 (Para 7) and 1992 (Supp 3) SCC? ( 34 ) IN aforesaid cases, neither the present Rules 1976 nor the present Government order dated 26. 2. 1999 were considered. The controversy arising in those cases was entirely different. ( 35 ) SHRI A. P. Sahi, appearing for one of the petitioners, has placed reliance on the decision in government of Andhra Pradesh v. P. B. Vijaikumar and another, 1995 SC 1468. In this case, again the Apex Court was considering extent and scope of Article 15 (3) vis-a-vis Article 16. In the instant case, the respondents have not disputed the authority/constitutionality of reservation for women. The said decision is of no help to the petitioners. ( 36 ) RELIANCE has also been placed on the decision in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International airport Authority of India and others, AIR 1979 SC 1628 , and argued that respondents cannot act arbitrarily. The said decision, in my opinion, is not relevant for the purposes of deciding the present case inasmuch as it is not the case of the respondents or either of the parties that any woman candidate has been excluded from being considered. All the eligible/qualified women candidates, who applied against the advertisement, were allowed to appear in the examination. The aforesaid decision, therefore, renders no help to the petitioner. Even Kumari Archana mehta, petitioner in the leading case also admittedly appeared in the examination but raised no grievance of being discriminated arbitrarily. ( 37 ) SHRI Sudhir Agrawal, advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents placed reliance on the decision in State of Bihar and another v. Bal Mukund Sah and others. AIR 2000 SC 1296 (Para 11), wherein Apex Court observed that unless Rules in question were amended as provided under law, no more reservation could be provided by any other means. ( 38 ) IN the case of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad v. Raj Kumar and others, 1997 AWC (Suppl) 489 (Paras 5. 6. 8 and 9), a Division Bench of this Court, while considering present Rule 23 of Rules. 1976 observed : "6. ( 38 ) IN the case of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad v. Raj Kumar and others, 1997 AWC (Suppl) 489 (Paras 5. 6. 8 and 9), a Division Bench of this Court, while considering present Rule 23 of Rules. 1976 observed : "6. Rule 23, like Article 16 (4) of the Constitution, is an enabling provision giving discretion to honble Chief Justice to provide for reservations. It is for the Honble Chief Justice to make or not to make reservations under Rule 23. Reservation is a matter, which has to be decided on the basis of several factors, such as, nature of the job, requirement of maintenance of efficiency, and in adequacy of representation of backward class of citizens in the service. Reservation cannot be claimed and granted as a matter of course. The powers of the Honble Chief Justice, being purely discretionary, no mandamus can be issued, directing his Lordship to pass an order making reservation in favour of any caste or class of persons. " ( 39 ) SHRI Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel representing the High Court stated that, in all 135 posts are to be filled up ; 20 per cent, of the same will come to 27 : 48 women candidates are in the zone of successful candidates on the basts of written examination. It cannot be said at this stage that 27 women candidates will not be successful finally. He argued that, even if for the sake of argument, contention of the petitioner is accepted though not admitted, it will be premature to interfere with the selection process at this stage. ( 40 ) IN the case of Ajit Singh Januja and others v. State of Punjab and others, 11996) 2 SCC 715 : air 1996 SC 1189 (Paras 10, 14 and 15), the Apex Court, while considering policy/theory of reservation, observed : "the policy of reservation cannot be implemented in a manner to block the merit and to make it dry. . . . . . . . . . . Again in Para 15 their Lordships observed : "all concerned who are involved and interested in the uplift and growth of the nation have to work out a system by which the injustice done to a Section of people in our society at a certain period of history can be rectified by providing protections to their descendants, but we have to be conscious, at the same time that the efficiency of the administration of the country is not harmed and there is no reverse discrimination. . . . . . " ( 41 ) THE very fact that large number of women candidates applied against the advertisement in question, and 48 women candidates are declared successful upto written examination stage, it cannot be said that women candidates. In the present scenario, are in any way nonsuited or otherwise deprived of fair opportunity to compete. The Chief Justice, in his wisdom and discretion, had not provided for reservation in favour of women candidate till date. The same cannot be said to be arbitrary. ( 42 ) THIS Court finds no ground for interference with the selection process in question at this stage. ( 43 ) THE writ petition accordingly falls and dismissed. ( 44 ) PARTIES to bear their own costs. .