ORDER : Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/interveners, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of U.P. 2. We find that 189 candidates are to be included in view of the decision of this Court in Hanuman Dutt Shukla Vs. State of U.P. We also note that more than 100 persons appointed have left the training/service. The learned counsel appearing for the individual petitioners have pointed out that the figure would be more than 200. 3. Be that as it may, we direct the learned AAG appearing for the State to verify as to how many persons are in actual service as on today in the post of Sub-Inspectors and Platoon Commanders out of 4617 candidates already appointed. In respect of such vacancies and in respect of 189 candidates of whitener category, we direct the State to complete the selection process in the order of merit. 4. We make it clear that in the process, those who have already been selected shall not be disturbed. We also make it clear that the selection and appointment shall be subject to the candidates completing all the codal requirements. 5. There are also a few individual grievances regarding the faulty chip, non-production/delayed production of the caste/community/domicile certificates or police verification etc. 6. The learned counsel appearing in those matters may give their particulars to the learned AAG today itself by 06.00 PM. We direct the State to reconsider those cases and in case they are otherwise found eligible, we direct the State to proceed with the selection and appointment of those candidates as well. 7. We find that there is a recent amendment to sub-section 5 of Section 3 of The Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-servicemen) (Amendment) Act, 2016. On account of such lapse, in case the 226 vacancies have resultantly arisen, we direct the State to complete the recruitment in respect of those 226 vacancies as well. What is said about non-disturbance of candidates already appointed and requirement of codal formalities would apply to those 226 candidates as well. 8. We direct the State to complete the process, as above and submit a status report to this Court before 16.01.2018. 9. What is said about non-disturbance of candidates already appointed and requirement of codal formalities would apply to those 226 candidates as well. 8. We direct the State to complete the process, as above and submit a status report to this Court before 16.01.2018. 9. The State is also directed to file a list of petitioners/interveners/impleading applicants (actual names) before the High Court or this Court as on 31.12.2016. In case any one of them has already been selected, the same shall be indicated. 10. In view of the order passed as above, I.A. No. 89992/2017 and I.A.No. 89994/2017 in SLP(C) No.16432/2017, D. No.28242/2017, I.A. DIARY NO.109716/2017 IN T.C.(C) No.141/2017, SLP(C) No.20387/2017, I.A. No.75392/2017 in SLP(C) No.20387/2017, I.A. NO.86038/2017 IN SLP(C)D.No.20387/2017, SLP(C)D.No.22404/2017 AND W.P.(C) NO.476/2017 are disposed of. 11. List the matters on 16.01.2018.