Judgment Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. In this writ petition following relief has been claimed: “i) That denial of appointment by applying physical standard of General Category to the scheduled caste petitioner may kindly be held illegal, wrong, unreasonable, irreparable and unconstitutional. ii) That respondents may kindly be directed to offer appointment to the petitioner as Male Constable in sportsman category.” 2. The facts in a nutshell are that vide advertisement Annexure P-14, 701 posts of Constables general duty for appointment on the establishment of 4th IR Bn. Jangal Beri were advertised. The provision of reservation in favour of various categories including SC, ST, OBC Sportsman category and Wards of Freedom Fighter etc. was also made as per quota prescribed for these categories. The educational qualification and physical standard of a candidate to the post are as follows:- 3. ELIGIBILITY CONDITION Only such candidates should apply for recruitment as constables in Himachal Pradesh Police Department who are possessing the following educational qualification and physical standards:- Sr. Category Age Minimum Height Chest No. Edu. Qlf. 1. General 18 to 23 years 10+2 5’ 6” 31”* 32” 2. SC/ST 18 to 25 years 10+2 5’ 4” 29”* 30” 3. OBC 18 to 25 years 10+2 5’ 6” 31”* 32” 4. Home Guards 20 to 28 years 10+2 5’ 6” 31”* 32” (General/OBC category) 5. Home (SC/ 20 to 28 years 10+2 5’ 4” 29”* 30” ST Category) 6. Outstanding 18 to 25 years 10+2 5’ 6” 31”* 32” Sportsman (General/OBC category) 7. Outstanding 18 to 25 years 10+2 5’ 4” 29”* 30” Sportsman (SC/ST category) Note: The cut off date for calculation of upper and lower age limits of the candidates will be 01-11-2008. The candidates who do not meet the physical standards and do not possess the requisite educational qualifications as mentioned above need to apply.” 3. The petitioner admittedly belongs to scheduled caste community and sportsman category. His name was sponsored by the Directorate of Youth Services and Sports, Himachal Pradesh as is apparent from letter dated 29.12.2008 of Superintendent of Police, Distt. Bilaspur, Annexure P-15, whereby the petitioner was informed about his nomination for the post of constable reserved for sportsman category. He made available requisite certificates and was allowed to appear in the physical test. In the matter of his height, his candidature was considered viz-a-viz relaxed standard meant for SC category candidate. Bilaspur, Annexure P-15, whereby the petitioner was informed about his nomination for the post of constable reserved for sportsman category. He made available requisite certificates and was allowed to appear in the physical test. In the matter of his height, his candidature was considered viz-a-viz relaxed standard meant for SC category candidate. On successfully qualifying the physical test, he was allowed to undergo ground test. The same was also successfully qualified by the petitioner. As such he was allowed to sit in the written test. After combined ground test and written test, he was called for interview vide Annexure P-16. He, however, was not interviewed for the reason that the only post of sportsman category for Bilaspur District was for general category candidate and because of his height being not 5”x 6”, he is not entitled to be appointed against the said post. 4. The impugned action has been assailed before this Court on the grounds inter alia that he being a SC category candidate fulfilled the prescribed norms qua height and chest as per the norms prescribed for this category. He could have not been ousted from the recruitment process on the basis of physical standard prescribed for general category candidate. His suitability for the post in question was not to be considered on the basis of the prescribed standard for height meant for general category candidates. Also that the relaxation in physical standard to SC category candidates was granted by the competent authority keeping in mind the social cultural and economic conditions of such categories and as the advertisement clearly and unambiguously discloses the prescribed norms qua height for SC/ST Sportsman category candidate as 5’-4”, therefore, the standard prescribed for general category candidate could have not been applied in this case. Also that SC candidate competing with other general category candidates does not become general category candidate for the purpose of physical standard. However, for other merits and standards, he will have to compete with them. 5. In reply, the stand taken by the respondents-State reads as follows:- Para-8: That in reply to this para, it is submitted that 3% posts of Constables are reserved for sports persons and the names of outstanding sportsmen are sponsored by the Directorate of Youth Services and Sports. It is pertinent to submit here that posts of constables in the Police Department are being filled in on population percentage basis. It is pertinent to submit here that posts of constables in the Police Department are being filled in on population percentage basis. Accordingly 1 post was reserved for sports person of Bilaspur district out of 39 posts. Names of eight candidates of Bilaspur District were sponsored by the Director Youth Services and Sports, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla for this post including the name of the petitioner. The call letters were issued to all eight eligible persons/ candidates including the petitioner to report at 3rd I.R. Bn. Pandoh on 06-01-09 for the recruitment under sports men category for district Bilaspur. Para-10: That the contents of this para are admitted to the extent that the petitioner was called for personality test for the post of Sportsman General Category. It is respectfully submitted that the post meant for sports person in Bilaspur district was meant for general category candidate. The height prescribed for general category candidate is 5’-6” whereas the height of petitioner was found to be 5’-5.1/4” which was less than prescribed height of general category, hence the post under this category remained vacant.” 6. Pursuant to the order passed in this writ petition on the previous date, Sh. Mohan Lal, Inspector of Distt. Police, Bilaspur is present and has produced the record. However, nothing could be made out from the record so produced that the recruitment in the police Department is at State level or at district level. Learned Addl. Advocate General, on instructions, however, submits that it is district-wise recruitment being made in the police Department. 7. There was only one post of constable for sportsman category in District Bilaspur. The 200 roster point produced in the Court and being followed in the matter of recruitment of stconstable in police department reveals that point for sportsman category is at Sl. No. 31, 2nd at Sl. No. 66, 3rd at Sl. No. 93, 4th at Sl. No. 131, 5th at Sl. No. 166, 7th and last at Sl. No. 193. All these posts are meant for sportsman general categories. Nothing, however, is brought to the notice of this Court that SC category sportsman candidate cannot compete for the post meant for general category with the help of relaxed physical standard. No. 93, 4th at Sl. No. 131, 5th at Sl. No. 166, 7th and last at Sl. No. 193. All these posts are meant for sportsman general categories. Nothing, however, is brought to the notice of this Court that SC category sportsman candidate cannot compete for the post meant for general category with the help of relaxed physical standard. This Court does not find any substance in the case of the respondent department that the petitioner who belongs to SC category should have not been considered against the post in question reserved for general category sportsman candidate. That too when he was sponsored by the Directorate of Youth Services and Sports, Himachal Pradesh for appointment to the post, meant for sportsman category. Not only this but his candidature was accepted. He was allowed to appear in the physical test. He was found physically fit, no doubt in accordance with the relaxed physical standard prescribed for SC category candidate. Not only this but the petitioner even qualified for ground test successfully and for that matter even written test also. Denial to interview on the grounds stated hereinabove to my mind is not only illegal, but arbitrary also, because the present is not a case of granting any relaxation so far as clearance of ground test, written test and personality test as per prescribed norms are concerned. Present, however, is a case where the petitioner has only been granted relaxation in respect of height, that too as per the norms prescribed for a candidate belonging to SC/ST category. The provision of relaxation in physical standard in favour of SC/ST category candidate has been made by the respondents themselves most probably keeping in view their social, cultural and economic conditions viz-a-viz general category candidate. 8. After relaxation in respect of physical standard as legally permissible, if the petitioner has been allowed to undergo ground test and also to appear in the written test and has successfully qualified the same along with other candidates including general category, it is not understandable as to how he could have been denied his right to appear in the personal interview and ultimately appointment, if successfully qualified the written test also. At this juncture, reference can be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Jitendera Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 119 . At this juncture, reference can be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Jitendera Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 119 . The question for consideration before the Apex Court in this judgment was as to whether an OBC candidate who while exercising option applied as reserved category candidate, becomes eligible to be considered against reserved vacancy can also be considered against an unreserved vacancy if he scores more marks than the last candidate selected from the general category. The poser for consideration before the Apex Court has been answered as follows:- 75. In our opinion, the relaxation in age does not in any manner upset the "level playing field". It is not possible to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that relaxation in age or the concession in fee would in any manner be infringement of Article 16 (1) of the Constitution of India. These concessions are provisions pertaining to the eligibility of a candidate to appear in the competitive examination. At the time when the concessions are availed, the open competition has not commenced. It commences when all the candidates who fulfill the eligibility conditions, namely, qualifications, age, preliminary written test and physical test are permitted to sit in the main written examination. With age relaxation and the fee concession, the reserved candidates are merely brought within the zone of consideration, so that they can participate in the open competition on merit. Once the candidate participates in the written examination, it is immaterial as to which category, the candidate belongs. All the candidates to be declared eligible had participated in the Preliminary Test as also in the Physical Test. It is only thereafter that successful candidates have been permitted to participate in the open competition. 9. In that case, only the relaxation in age was granted to an OBC category candidate and after such relaxation when he competed along with other candidates he secured berth in the selection list in the open competition on merits. It is in this background, the Apex Court has held that mere grant of relaxation in age should have not rendered him disentitled for appointment from general category as he was found to have come in open merits. 10. It is in this background, the Apex Court has held that mere grant of relaxation in age should have not rendered him disentitled for appointment from general category as he was found to have come in open merits. 10. Thus in the present case, appropriate course would have been to interview the petitioner and being the only qualified candidate from sportsman category, appointed as constable. He being the only eligible candidate, however, has not been allowed to appear in the personal interview erroneously. The post admittedly is lying vacant. I thus find the present a fit case where the respondents are liable to be directed to interview the petitioner against the post reserved for sportsman category for District Bilaspur and there being no cut off marks prescribed for making selection from this category, appoint him against the post in question. 11. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, there shall be a direction to the respondents to conduct personal interview of the petitioner on a date to be fixed by the Selection Committee under intimation to him within two months from today and appoint him forthwith if otherwise found in merit. 12. With the above observations, writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application (s), if any.