JUDGMENT : N.K. Mehrotra, J. All the Petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions were the candidates for selection on the post of constable in Civil Police by submitting their application-forms in pursuance of the Advertisement dated 5.1.2005 for 4,364 vacancies. Later on these vacancies were enhanced by issuing its subsequent amended Advertisement on 21.1.2005 by increasing the number of vacancies to 6,091. It was a district wise selection and applications were invited for the vacancies in districts of Meerut, Moradabad, Budaun, Etah, Fatehgarh, Mainpuri, Etawah, Jhansi, Allahabad, Sonbhadra, Azamgarh, Ghazipur, Deoria, Gonda and Sitapur. All the Petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions applied in districts of Sitapur and Gonda. In the selection process, there were three stages of physical test, written test and interview. Some of the Petitioners could not be selected in the written test and some of the Petitioners appeared in the interview after being declared successful in the written test but they could not score in the merit. After the declaration of the final result, the aforesaid writ petitions have been filed by different Petitioners on different grounds. In various writ petitions, the selection process has been challenged on mala fide, arbitrariness and unfairness. In several writ petitions, a prayer for quashing the selection process has been made with further prayer for enquiry by C.B.I. 2. The procedure for selection was prescribed by the State Government in the advertisement as contained in the earlier office-memorandum issued by the State Government. The position of the vacancies advertised in the initial advertisement and corrigendum in all the fifteen districts is as follows: 3. After issuing the advertisement inviting the applications on 5.1.2005 (Annexure-1 in Writ Petition No. 3200 (S/S) of 2005, Bhupendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors.) a circular was issued by the Police Head Quarters on 8.1.2005 (Annexure-2) regarding selection process and bifurcation of vacancies district wise. The selection programme was mentioned in these letters. On submission of the application forms, the candidates were allotted chest numbers. According to the scheduled programme, the physical measurements of the candidates were to be taken first and thereafter, they were permitted to participate in the physical test. The marks sheet of physical test was prepared and signatures of the candidates were obtained on that tabulation sheet. The candidates who qualified the physical test were permitted to appear in the written examination. The marks sheet of physical test was prepared and signatures of the candidates were obtained on that tabulation sheet. The candidates who qualified the physical test were permitted to appear in the written examination. The allotment of the maximum marks for three types of tests was as follows: Type of Test Maximum Marks 1. Physical Test 100 2. Written Examination 50 3. Interview 20 4. A list of successful candidates who secured 33% marks in the written test was prepared. In the physical test, there were different items, which were already known to the candidates through advertisement. For qualifying the physical test every candidate was to secure 50% marks in each category. According to the Petitioners 2-1/2 times of the advertised vacancies, the candidates were to be called for interview but according to the opposite parties, the office memorandum was issued on 8.7.2004 by the State Government by which the earlier office memorandum dated 8.6.1998 laying down the procedure for calling the selected candidates five times equal to the vacancies in the written test was modified and according to the amended procedure, all the candidates who qualify the physical test by obtaining 50% marks in each types of physical test were to be permitted to appear in the written examination and instead of calling the candidates 2-1/2 times of the vacancies for interview, it was provided in the amended procedure that all the candidates who obtain 33% marks in the written examination were to be called for interview. 5. In several writ petitions, the Petitioners have challenged the correctness of the marks awarded to them in the written examination, which shall be taken up separately. In most of the writ petitions, the selection process has been challenged on various common grounds. 6. First of all I take up four writ petitions pertaining to the selection of Constable in Civil Police in district Sitapur. These writ petitions are Writ Petition No. 2809 (S/S) of 2005, Harendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors.; Writ Petition No. 3407 (S/S) of 2005, Shambhu Saran Shukla v. State of U.P. and Ors.; Writ Petition No. 3195 (S/S) of 2005, Ravendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. and Writ Petition No. 3069 (S/S) of 2005, Shivam Kumar Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. and Writ Petition No. 3069 (S/S) of 2005, Shivam Kumar Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. Out of these four writ petitions, in Writ Petition No. 2809 (S/S) of 2005, Harendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. and Writ Petition No. 3195 {S/S) of 2005, Ravendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. the individual Petitioners have the grievance that they had qualified but they have been declared unsuccessful. In Writ Petition No. 3407 (S/S) of 2005, Shambhu Saran Shukla v. State of U.P. and Ors. and Writ Petition No. 3069 (S/S) of 2005, Shivam Kumar Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. the Petitioners have challenged the selection process and sought the quashing of the entire selection. It is alleged that the concerned authorities have committed serious irregularities inasmuch as so many incompetent candidates who could not get success in physical test and written test were selected and those who qualified in all the three tests, could not be selected. It is also alleged that the Petitioners were approached by some persons that they would be selected only after giving some gratification. The Petitioners were not informed about the cut-off merit for final selection. The final merit list was not circulated. 7. The opposite parties have filed the counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that initially 275 vacancies were advertised which were later on increased to 350 in district Sitapur. The selection committee was duly constituted and selection process was completed and after declaration of the result, the selected candidates have joined. Annexure-CA1 in Writ Petition No. 3407 (S/S) of 2005 indicates the number of selected candidates categorywise. The position of the vacancies in each category is as follows: Category Position of Vacancies (1) General Category 175 (2) Backward Class 94 (3) Scheduled Castes 74 (4) Scheduled Tribes 7 Total 350 8. Out of 175 seats of General Category, the position of selected candidates in this category is as follows: 1. General Category 68 2. Backward Class 81 3. Scheduled Castes 9 4. Reserved for Home Guard 12 5. Reserved for Freedom Fighter 2 6. Reserved for Ex-Soldier 3 9. The details of the candidates selected in the Backward Class is as follows: 1. Backward Class 85 2. Backward Class from Home-Guard (Reserved) 5 3. Backward Class from Freedom Fighters (Reserved) 4 10. Backward Class 81 3. Scheduled Castes 9 4. Reserved for Home Guard 12 5. Reserved for Freedom Fighter 2 6. Reserved for Ex-Soldier 3 9. The details of the candidates selected in the Backward Class is as follows: 1. Backward Class 85 2. Backward Class from Home-Guard (Reserved) 5 3. Backward Class from Freedom Fighters (Reserved) 4 10. The detail of the candidates selected in Scheduled Caste category is as follows: Scheduled Caste 73 Dependent of Freedom Fighter Scheduled Caste. 1 11. The detail of the candidates selected in Scheduled Tribes is as follows: 1. Scheduled Tribes 7 12. The opposite parties have given the details of the candidates caste-wise among the candidates who applied and the total candidates selected in physical test and written test and interview. The details of candidates caste-wise are as follows: 13. In Writ Petition No. 3407 (S/S) of 2005 the grounds taken for quashing the selection process are quite vague and without basis. The Petitioners have not been able to substantiate from the record that any incompetent candidate was selected who had not qualified in the physical test or written test. The Petitioners could not name any person who had approached him for illegal gratification. The writ petitions filed by unsuccessful candidates for quashing selection process cannot be allowed on mere false allegations, which is the imagination of their mind. For instituting a C.B.I. enquiry or any other enquiry there must be some allegations giving specific details. Since, the writ petitions are full of vague allegations, there can be no question of granting relief to such persons either by quashing the selection process or instituting an enquiry. The opposite parties have stated in the counter-affidavit that the marks obtained by the candidates in the physical test and written test were not placed before the Interview Board. It was done just to maintain fairness in the selection process. Moreover, the interview was only for 20 marks out of 170 marks. The marks obtained by the last selected candidate in each category in district Sitapur was as follows: (1) General Category 130.5 (2) Backward Class 124 (3) S.C./S.T. 117 14. After perusal of the record, I find that the Petitioner has not qualified even in the written test and he has obtained only 10 marks out of 50 marks and he could not secure 33% minimum marks in the written test. After perusal of the record, I find that the Petitioner has not qualified even in the written test and he has obtained only 10 marks out of 50 marks and he could not secure 33% minimum marks in the written test. Therefore, Petitioner Shambhu Saran Shukla being an unsuccessful candidate has no right to seek the relief for quashing of the selection process which was conducted according to the prescribed procedure and since his allegations in the writ petition have been found quite vague and without being any specific detail, the writ petition for instituting enquiry by independent Agency cannot be allowed. 15. Writ Petition No. 2809 (S/S) of 2005 has been filed by one Harendra Singh who had sought the relief for getting the appointment by calling him in the interview. I have seen the copy of the written examination pertaining to this candidate and have found that he has obtained only 15 marks out of 50 marks while he was required to obtain 16.5 marks (33% out of the maximum marks 50 allotted for written test). This candidate also being unsuccessful candidate has no right to get appointment. Therefore, his writ petition is also liable to be dismissed. 16. The third writ petition relating to the selection pertaining to district Sitapur is Writ Petition No. 3195 (S/S) of 2005 filed by Ravendra Pratap Singh. This candidate has also not challenged the selection process in the writ petition. He has simply sought his appointment on the basis of his result. This Petitioner has made a request for enquiry by the C.B.I. on the basis of the allegations made only in the rejoinder-affidavit. The case set up in the rejoinder-affidavit cannot be accepted because ; it was not open to the Petitioner to take new plea in the rejoinder-affidavit. This Petitioner Ravendra Pratap Singh has alleged that the result of the written examination was declared and it was pasted at the Gate of the Reserve Police Lines, Sitapur on 12.2.2005. This result was of those candidates who were unsuccessful in the written test. Since the name of the Petitioner was not included in the list of unsuccessful candidates, he was called for interview. It is not denied that this Petitioner obtained 90 marks in physical test, 23 marks in written examination and 16 marks in interview. This result was of those candidates who were unsuccessful in the written test. Since the name of the Petitioner was not included in the list of unsuccessful candidates, he was called for interview. It is not denied that this Petitioner obtained 90 marks in physical test, 23 marks in written examination and 16 marks in interview. Thus, he obtained only 129 marks but the last selected candidate in the General Category had obtained 130.5 marks. Therefore, he could not be selected. It is further alleged by this Petitioner that on 29.4.2005, a list was pasted at the Gate of the Reserve Police Lines, Sitapur, in which his name was appearing and in this list his Chest No. 43 along with his name was shown at serial No. 4 in the list of the selected candidates. According to the Petitioner, he had taken the photo of this list and the list, which was torn from the notice board. The typed copy of the torn list is Annexure-5 and the photos are Annexure-4. All these facts have been denied by the opposite parties by filing the counter-affidavit. According to the opposite parties the list of the finally selected candidates is Annexure-CA1 and the list of unsuccessful candidates in written test is Annexure-CA2. The list of finally selected candidates is duly signed by the Superintendent of Police, Sitapur. It is corroborated by the original record. The torn list (Annexure-5) does not indicate as to whether it is a list of the successful candidates or unsuccessful candidates and to which result it pertains. Similarly, the photographs do not establish anything to prove the malpractices. The case of the Petitioner is that instead of the Petitioner, the candidate of Chest No. 41 was called for medical but this fact is also incorrect because the candidate having Chest No. 41 has not been selected for appointment as is clear from Annexure-CA1. Therefore, in this writ petition also the Petitioner has not been able to establish any mala fide, arbitrariness, and malpractice in the process of selection. The Petitioner is unsuccessful candidate in the final merit list because he could not score in the merit. The candidate who secured 130.5 marks in total was selected and the Petitioner had obtained only 129 marks in total in all the three tests. The Petitioner is unsuccessful candidate in the final merit list because he could not score in the merit. The candidate who secured 130.5 marks in total was selected and the Petitioner had obtained only 129 marks in total in all the three tests. Therefore, the writ petition filed by this Petitioner is also not maintainable either for declaring him successful or for giving him appointment on the post of the Constable by this Court. 17. In Writ Petition No. 3069 (S/S) of 2005, Shivam Kumar Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. unsuccessful candidates have filed the writ petition for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned selection process for the post of Constable in Civil Police in district Sitapaur. According to the Petitioners they have qualified in the physical test and written examination and they also appeared before the interview Board. According to them, they were very hopeful that if, the minimum marks had been given to them, they would have been selected finally for the post. It is alleged that one Shashank Babu Shukla of General Category candidate whose Chest No. was 773, was weak in physical test but he was finally selected and one O.B.C. category candidate bearing Chest No. 1290 was not able to read properly but he was also selected. It is further alleged that Tej Mohammad and Rajneesh who were weak in physical test, they were also selected finally. It is also alleged that one Additional Superintendent of Police V. K. Rai from Mirzapur had come to the Selection Board for conducting the aforesaid examination but he was later on sent back because he was very honest officer and the same treatment was given to one Shambhu Saran Yadav, Dy. Superintendent of Police and Shri Om Veer Singh, Dy. Superintendent of Police who were sent back from the Selection Board. The opposite parties have stated in the counter-affidavit that the Petitioner No. 5 Amit Kumar Singh son of Shambhu Bahadur Singh had not applied and instead Amit Kumar Singh son of Shamsher Bahadur had applied and rest of the Petitioners had qualified the physical test and written test and they were called for interview. It is also alleged that Petitioner No. 12 Abhishekh Dwivedi son of Luxman Dwivedi had also not applied but as per record Abhishekh Dwivedi son of Balram Dwivedi had applied. It is also alleged that Petitioner No. 12 Abhishekh Dwivedi son of Luxman Dwivedi had also not applied but as per record Abhishekh Dwivedi son of Balram Dwivedi had applied. I find that there is nothing on the record to establish that the Petitioner Nos. 5 and 12 have applied for the post of constable. The opposite parties have given the details of marks obtained by the Petitioners in physical test, written test and the interview in Annexure-CA1. The decision of the Selection Committee cannot be challenged on the vague allegations. The candidates Sarva Shri Shashank Babu Shukla having Chest No. 773, Vivek Kumar having Chest No. 1290, Tej Mohammad Ansari having Chest No. 556 and Rajneesh Kumar having Chest No. 1020 have secured very good marks in the written test as is clear from Annexure-CA2 and they have also obtained 80% marks and above in the physical test. For the purpose of the physical test one has to qualify in each item after obtaining 50% of the marks and these candidates have qualified. According to the opposite parties, the result of the written examination was not given to the members of the Selection Board in interview. Therefore, there can be no question of any arbitrariness and unfairness. Those candidates who have done well in the written test have also secured good marks in interview. So far as the recall of the members of the Selection Committee is concerned, the opposite parties have explained in the counter-affidavit that these officers were required in connection with the Law and Order duty in their districts and at the time of change of the officers, their personal difficulties were also considered. Shri D. K. Rai was required in Mela Duty in Mirzapur, Shri Shambhu Saran Yadav was required in connection with the Holi Festival in his district but he did not come back after the Holi Festival was over. Shri Om Veer Singh could not come on his own and therefore, he was replaced by Shri S.N. Bhardwaj, the Superintendent of Police, Auraiya. This change of the members of the Selection Board because of the reasons given in the counter-affidavit cannot be said to be unusual. The Petitioners of this writ petition have not impleaded those candidates who were finally selected in the writ petition. They themselves are unsuccessful candidates. This change of the members of the Selection Board because of the reasons given in the counter-affidavit cannot be said to be unusual. The Petitioners of this writ petition have not impleaded those candidates who were finally selected in the writ petition. They themselves are unsuccessful candidates. They have not been able to establish any mal-practice in selection process in district Sitapur. Appearance for interview does not give any right to the Petitioners to be declared successful. Out of 170 marks in total, only 20 marks were allotted for interview. Therefore, this writ petition is also liable to be dismissed. 18. Besides, the aforesaid four writ petitions, the rest of the writ petitions relate to the selection of Constable in Civil Police in district Gonda. In Writ Petition No. 3200 (S/S) of 2005 eight unsuccessful candidates have challenged the selection process and the final select list Annexure-3 published by the opposite parties. 19. It will not be out of place to make it clear at this place that the select list cannot be quashed without impleading the candidates who were finally selected and who have already joined. In this writ petition, no candidate whose name appears in the final select list has been impleaded as opposite party. In All India SC and ST Employees Assn. and Another etc. Vs. A. Arthur Jeen and Others etc., AIR 2001 SC 1851 , it was held by the Supreme Court that at the time of challenging the Panel of the selected candidates, at least some of the successful candidates must be impleaded as Respondents. The successful candidates are the necessary parties in such petitions. 20. In district Gonda 300 vacancies were notified on 8.1.2005. Later on before the last date a number of vacancies was increased to 400. A detailed programme was issued on 8.1.2005 as contained in Annexure-1. All the Petitioners qualified in the physical test. The candidates who qualified in the physical test were required to appear in the written test. The candidates who secured 33% marks in the written test were to appear in the interview. According to the Petitioners, the candidates equal to 2.5 times of the vacancies notified were to be called for interview. All the Petitioners qualified in the physical test. The candidates who qualified in the physical test were required to appear in the written test. The candidates who secured 33% marks in the written test were to appear in the interview. According to the Petitioners, the candidates equal to 2.5 times of the vacancies notified were to be called for interview. This averment in the writ petition is found incorrect as is clear from the office memorandum dated 8.7.2004, issued by the Home Ministry of the State of U.P. This office memorandum was issued much prior to the selection process began. By this office memorandum, the earlier office memorandum dated 8.6.1998 was modified. Earlier, there was a provision in the prescribed procedure that the candidates equal to five times of the vacancies shall be called for written test but it was modified on 8.7.2004 to the effect that all the candidates who qualify in the physical test shall be permitted to appear in the written test. Similarly, it was prescribed through this office memorandum dated 8.7.2004, that instead of calling candidates equal to 2.5 times vacancies for interview, all the candidates who qualify in the written test by obtaining 33% marks or above shall appear in the interview. By making this amendment, the State Government has ensured the fairness in the selection process. Since only 20 marks were allotted for interview, therefore, it cannot be said that it is only to give advantage to the men of their own choice. Moreover, this office memorandum was issued on 8.7.2004, long back, the selection process was initiated. 21. The grievance of the Petitioners in this writ petition is that one candidate Parmatma Prasad having Chest No. 3243 of the O.B.C. category could not succeed in the written test but he was finally selected. The opposite parties have made it clear that it was a computer mistake in printing the list and because of wrong feedback to the computer that the marks of the physical test were wrongly feeded in the computer and this mistake was corrected on 29.4.2005 just after the declaration of the result and Parmatma Prasad is not a finally selected candidate. 22. It is further alleged by the Petitioners of this writ petition that one Ex-Army man Ram Preet having Chest No. 20 was also included in the final select list while he was not successful in the written test. 22. It is further alleged by the Petitioners of this writ petition that one Ex-Army man Ram Preet having Chest No. 20 was also included in the final select list while he was not successful in the written test. The opposite parties have also explained that this was also a mistake in the computer. It is explained that there were two typographical errors in the select list. One Vidhya Ratan Shukla having Chest No. 22 who had failed in physical test was declared passed in place of Ram Preet having Chest No. 20 in the Ex-Army category. Ram Preet had secured 23 marks in the written test. The entire Column No. 30 regarding chest numbers was missing in the print out of the Scheduled Caste candidates who were found successful for interview due to printing setting mistake. All these candidates who have been left over were informed about their selection for the interview by sending notices through registered post and Radiogram the very next day. His interview was conducted along with other candidates in the normal serial order of the Ex-Army category. His signature on the attendance part of the application-form bears the testimony to this fact, which is Annexure-CA7. I am of the view that it was a large-scale selection in which total 22,094 candidates had applied in district Gonda all alone. There were several categories for the purpose of reservation. There were three stages of selection and it is not unusual if, one or two mistake occurred in typing the list or in feeding result in computer. Merely because of one or two computer errors, the whole selection process cannot be quashed, especially when those mistakes have been corrected. 23. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that the result of the successful candidates indicates that a gross bungling is made in the selection because the persons belonging to a particular caste were mostly selected. The opposite parties have stated in the counter-affidavit that the selection process took place at various centers in Meerut, Moradabad, Budaun, Etah, Fatehgarh, Mainpuri, Allahabad, Jhansi, Lucknow, Azamgarh, Ghazipur, Deoria, Gonda and Sitapur. The opposite parties have filed the chart showing the details regarding the date of examination, marks obtained by the candidates in interview as shown in Annexures-CA1, CA2 and CA3. The details of the marks obtained by the Petitioners have been shown in Annexure-CA4. The opposite parties have filed the chart showing the details regarding the date of examination, marks obtained by the candidates in interview as shown in Annexures-CA1, CA2 and CA3. The details of the marks obtained by the Petitioners have been shown in Annexure-CA4. It is also stated that in the selection process, in district Gonda the candidates in the General category were selected upto the quality point 132 and in the reserved category upto the quality point 129. 24. It appears from Annexure-CA3 that out of 22,094 the total candidates, 11,014 candidates were from O.B.C. category and only 6,656 candidates from general category. Similarly, after screening through physical test and written test, 2,307 candidates of general category appeared for interview while 2,778 candidates of Backward Class qualify in physical test and written test. It appears from Annexure-CA3 that the number of the candidates of O.B.C. category is larger than the number of candidates of general category. It is also made clear that in select list of the general category there are 200 names of the selected candidates. Since it was an open category, it includes the names of the candidates of all the categories who have secured 132 marks. So, out of these 200 selected candidates, near about 89 candidates of O.B.C. category have taken the seats of open category on the basis of merit. In O.B.C. category, there is a list of 108 selected candidates of O.B.C. category against 27% reservation. It is settled law that the candidates of reserved category who compete in merit have an option to take the seat of open category and the seat reserved for O.B.C. category and Scheduled Caste shall be filled only by Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and OBC category only. Therefore, the number of the candidates of OBC category in the select list has increased because of the candidates of OBC category have occupied the seats on the basis of the merit in open category. Section 3(6) of Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 is as follows: 3 (6). If a person belonging to any of the categories mentioned in Sub-section (1) gets selected on the basis of merit in an open competition with general candidates, he shall not be adjusted against the vacancies reserved for such category under Sub-section (1). 25. If a person belonging to any of the categories mentioned in Sub-section (1) gets selected on the basis of merit in an open competition with general candidates, he shall not be adjusted against the vacancies reserved for such category under Sub-section (1). 25. In view of this situation, the allegation of the Petitioners, that increase of number of the O.B.C. category candidates is the result of some bungling is without any basis. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners has argued that it was mandatory for the opposite parties to declare the result of the written test in view of the judgment in the case of Krishan Yadav and another Vs. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1994 SC 2166 , but in that case, the Supreme Court in view of the facts of the case at the time of quashing of the selection had laid down certain guidelines for the purpose of that selection only. Since, there is no procedure for declaration of the marks of the written test before the interview, it cannot be said that in the instant case there was any illegality in following the prescribed procedure. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners has further submitted that in Roshan Lal Tandon Vs. Union of India (UOI), AIR 1967 SC 1889 and Dr. Kailash Nath Mishra v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1988) 2 UPLBEC 1066, it was held that the condition of the advertisement is binding on the authorities if, those were declared before the selection. In several writ petitions a plea has been taken that there was a condition in the advertisement that there will be a question-paper for the written test but at the time of written test no question paper was provided. At the same time, it is admitted that the questions were written on the Blackboard. 26. Therefore, in the instant case, I do not find any such condition of the advertisement or the procedure for selection declared before the date of selection, which has not been followed. 27. In all other writ petitions pertaining to district Gonda, I find that more or less the same grounds have been taken and same instance of irregularities in the selection process have been stated. In view of the reasons given in the aforesaid discussions, I am of the view that all those reasons need not be repeated again and again. 28. In all other writ petitions pertaining to district Gonda, I find that more or less the same grounds have been taken and same instance of irregularities in the selection process have been stated. In view of the reasons given in the aforesaid discussions, I am of the view that all those reasons need not be repeated again and again. 28. In Writ Petition No. 3335 (S/S) of 2005, the Petitioners have alleged that one Dharmendra Singh son of Shri Ran Vijay Singh has been awarded 94 marks instead of 74. This averment is without any basis. The result of physical test has been prepared before the selection committee and every candidate was required to obtain only 50% marks to qualify the physical test in each category separately. Dharmendra Singh son of Shri Ran Vijay Singh is a candidate who has not been selected as is clear from the select list. In this writ petition, it is also alleged that against 100 posts reserved for O.B.C. category 119 Yadav candidates have been declared successful. In view of the reasons given above, this argument has no force because the number of Yadav candidates was greater than the number of other caste candidates and because of large number of Yadav candidates, the number of Yadav candidate in O.B.C. category is larger than the number of other caste category. In other writ petitions one more averment has been taken that at the time of physical test, the marks were given by using pencil and thereafter, arbitrarily the marks have been awarded to the candidates of their own choice. This averment has been denied by the opposite parties by producing the original mark-sheet, which bears the signature of each and every candidate. In most of the writ petitions, one averment has been made that the selection process should be quashed because of more number of Yadav candidates being selected. The opposite parties have explained in the counter-affidavit that there were 400 vacancies in recruitment Center, Gonda and the category wise vacancies are as under: (1) Unreserved .... 200 (2) O.B.C. .... 108 (3) Scheduled Castes .... 84 (4) Scheduled Tribes .... 8 29. The following candidates were selected as per provisions u/s 3 (6) of Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 referred to above: (1) General Category .... 103 (2) O.B.C. Category .... 200 (2) O.B.C. .... 108 (3) Scheduled Castes .... 84 (4) Scheduled Tribes .... 8 29. The following candidates were selected as per provisions u/s 3 (6) of Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 referred to above: (1) General Category .... 103 (2) O.B.C. Category .... 89 (3) Scheduled Castes .... 8 30. It is also mentioned that out of 6,727 O.B.C. category candidates, 3,773 candidates were found physically fit. Out of these candidates 197 O.B.C. category candidates were selected and in this figure 142 Yadav candidates have been finally selected. This result is because of the reason that more than 50% Yadav candidates are the applicants in the O.B.C. category. 31. In order to ascertain as to whether the same procedure has been followed in the entire selection in all the 15 districts or not? the record of all the 15 districts have been summoned and I have found that the result of the selection has been prepared in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The Rules of Reservation have been followed in accordance with the settled law. The number of reserved category candidates has increased because most of the reserved category candidates have occupied merit seats after securing cut off marks required for qualifying in the merit list. 32. I do not find any arbitrariness, nepotism or favourtism or any mal-practice in conducting the selection of the police constables in any of the district in which the vacancies were notified. It is only unsuccessful candidates who have filed various writ petitions without impleading the successful candidates who have already joined after the declaration of the result under misconception that there was some bungling in the selection process after seeing the number of more Yadav candidates in O.B.C. category candidates and after noting certain typographical errors in preparation of the select list as discussed above. Since, the arbitrariness, favourtism and nepotism have not been proved, the writ petition for quashing the selection process or for giving appointment as prayed by the Petitioners or for conducting C.B.I. enquiry cannot be entertained. 33. In view of the above, all the writ petitions are dismissed.