JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Abhishek Rai, Advocate holding brief of Sri Chandan Sharma for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondents. 2. The petitioner appeared in the selections for the post of District Audit Officer advertised by the U.P. Public Service Commission at Allahabad, vide advertisement dated 23.12.1989. Out of the advertised 18 vacancies, 10 vacancies were for General category candidates. The remaining vacancies were divided between other categories in the following manner : (1) 03 vacancies for Other Backward Class category. (2) 03 vacancies for Scheduled Caste category. (3) 01 for Dependant of Freedom Fighter. (4) 01 for Ex-Army Men. 3. The petitioner was allotted Roll No. 01258. He qualified for interviews held on 2nd May, 1992, as a general category candidate. 4. The petitioner submits that respondents wrongly allowed other backward class candidate to be included in the select list of general category candidates, and thus deprived the petitioner from getting selected against the three vacancies filed up by the other backward class candidates in general category. 5. In the counter-affidavit it is stated that the petitioner was not selected as he scored only 407 out of 700 marks, whereas, the last general category candidate scored 423 out of 700 marks. There were three vacancies reserved of the O.B.C. candidates but six candidates were declared successful. Three additional candidates of O.B.C. category namely Mahendra Prasad Chaudhary (Roll No. 6), Santosh Kumar (Roll No. 608) and Shankar Prasad Chaurasia (Roll No. 15) secured 427, 482 and 421 marks respectively. They were included on the basis of their merit in the general category. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the selections were notified in the year 1989 whereas, the Government Orders, for adjustment of O.B.C. candidates scoring more marks than general category candidates were issued on 11.9.1991 and 19.12.1991. He submits that the final result was declared on 8.5.1992. The reservation rules applicable on the date of announcement of result more particularly on the last date of filling up of the form should be applied to the selections. 7. The petitioner has filed an amendment application stating that O.B.C. candidates included in the merit list on the basis of their merit had been included by giving relaxation in age and thus they were entitled to compete only in the O.B.C. category. They cannot be included in the general category. 7. The petitioner has filed an amendment application stating that O.B.C. candidates included in the merit list on the basis of their merit had been included by giving relaxation in age and thus they were entitled to compete only in the O.B.C. category. They cannot be included in the general category. He has also requested for summoning the records of the selections. 8. Recently in Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 119 , the Supreme Court, has reiterated the law as it was laid down in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, (1992) Supp (3) SCC 217, as follows : “49. It is permissible for the State in view of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 38 of the Constitution of India to make suitable provisions in law to eradicate the disadvantages of candidates belonging to socially and educationally backward classes. Reservations are a mode to achieve the equality of opportunity guaranteed under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. Concessions and relaxations in fee or age provided to the reserved category candidates to enable them to compete and seek benefit of reservation, is merely an aid to reservation. The concessions and relaxations place the candidates on a par with general category candidates. It is only thereafter the merit of the candidates is to be determined without any further concessions in favour of the reserved category candidates. 50. It has been recognised by this Court in Indra Sawhney that larger concept of reservation would include incidental and ancillary provisions with a view to make the main provision of reservation effective. In Indra Sawhney it has been observed as under: (SCC pp. 692-93, para 743) “743. The question then arises whether clause (4) of Article 16 is exhaustive of the topic of reservations in favour of backward classes. Before we answer this question it is well to examine the meaning and content of the expression ‘reservation’. Its meaning has to be ascertained having regard to the context in which it occurs. The relevant words are ‘any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts’. The question is whether the said words contemplate only one form of provision namely reservation simpliciter, or do they take in other forms of special provisions like preferences, concessions and exemptions. In our opinion, reservation is the highest form of special provision, while preference, concession and exemption are lesser forms. The question is whether the said words contemplate only one form of provision namely reservation simpliciter, or do they take in other forms of special provisions like preferences, concessions and exemptions. In our opinion, reservation is the highest form of special provision, while preference, concession and exemption are lesser forms. The constitutional scheme and context of Article 16(4) induces us to take the view that larger concept of reservations takes within its sweep all supplemental and ancillary provisions ... and relaxations, consistent no doubt with the requirement of maintenance of efficiency of administration - the admonition of Article 335. The several concessions, exemptions and other measures issued by the Railway Administration and noticed in Karmchari Sangh are instances of supplementary, incidental and ancillary provisions made with a view to make the main provision of reservation effective i.e. to ensure that the members of the reserved class fully avail of the provision for reservation in their favour.” (emphasis in original) In our opinion, these observations are a complete answer to the submissions made by Mr. L.N. Rao and Dr. Rajeev Dhavan on behalf of the petitioners. 52. In the present case, the concessions availed of by the reserved category candidates in age relaxation and fee concessions has no relevance to the determination of the inter se merit on the basis of the final written test and interview. The ratio of the aforesaid judgment in fact permits reserved category candidates to be included in the general category candidates on the basis of merit.” 9. In this case we further find that the three candidates who belonged to O.B.C. category and were selected in general category, giving the cause of action for filing the writ petition, have not been impleaded. They were appointed in the year 1992 and most of them would have served for more than 18 years as District Audit Officers and may have been promoted to the higher posts in the department. In the absence of necessary parties, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 10. In the end it is submitted that one vacancy of the S.C. category was not filled up and that two persons from the general category did not joined. 11. In the absence of necessary parties, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 10. In the end it is submitted that one vacancy of the S.C. category was not filled up and that two persons from the general category did not joined. 11. We do not find any good ground for calling of the record after 18 years, to find out as to which general category candidate has not joined, on the averments made in amendment application, after 16 years of the filing of the writ petition. The vacancy must have been filled up in the subsequent recruitment. The writ petition is dismissed. ————