JUDGMENT : RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned counsel for the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. 2. The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a writ of certiorari to be issued quashing the selection of private respondents 2 to 6 who had been declared successful by proceedings dated 23.08.2014, on being extending the benefit of reservation granted to them in the quota of ex-servicemen; a writ of mandamus directing the Public Service Commission to declare the petitioner successful by granting him the benefit of ex-servicemen as he was unemployed, and had never joined any civil post after his being relieved/retired from the armed forces; and for a writ of mandamus directing the Public Service Commission to declare the petitioner successful by granting him the benefits extended to ex-servicemen, as he was unemployed and had never joined in civil post after his retirement. 3. In these three writ petitions the petitioners are all ex-servicemen who have applied for different posts pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Public Service Commission on 11.03.2011. It is their specific case that, while they remained unemployed and have not held any civil post on their being relieved/ having retired from the armed forces, the candidates, selected by the Public Service Commission under the ex-servicemen quota, were those who held civil posts after their being relieved/having retired from the armed forces; and they are, therefore, ineligible for being extended the benefit of reservation under the ex-servicemen category, in the light of the proceedings of the Government of India dated 14.08.2014. 4. In WPSB No. 385 of 2014 an additional contention has been urged by the petitioner that, since applications were invited to fill up 49 posts of Commercial Tax Officers, 5% reservation for ex-servicemen would require 2 posts to be earmarked under the ex-servicemen category; and no person from the ex-servicemen category was selected and appointed to any of these 49 posts by the Public Service Commission. In the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the restriction on being extended the benefit of reservation to the ex-servicemen category, in terms of the Office Memorandum of Government of India dated 14.08.2014, has no application to civil posts under the Government of Uttarakhand in as much as the said O.M. dated 14.08.2014 is not applicable to civil posts in the State; and the State of Uttarkahand has not imposed any such restrictions. A bare reading of the O.M. dated 14.08.2014 would show that, in terms of the notification dated 15.12.1979 as amended from time to time and the latest by 14.10.2012, the benefit of reservation to ex-servicemen was available upto 10% in group ‘C’ posts and 20% in group ‘D’ posts in Central Civil Services. It is with respect to these posts that restrictions were imposed by the O.M. dated 02.08.1985 that, once an ex-serviceman has joined a Government job after relieving/retirement from armed forces, his status of ex-serviceman in the Government employment would cease. As the O.M. dated 14.08.2014 is applicable only to Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ posts in Central Civil Services, and the selection process undertaken by the State Public Service Commission is to fill up posts in the State Civil Services and not in Central Civil Services, the O.M. dated 14.08.2014 would not automatically apply in filling up civil posts, under the Government of Uttarakhand, earmarked for ex-servicemen in as much as the State Government, unlike the Central Govt., has not placed any such restriction. 5. The mere fact that an ex-serviceman is employed by the State Government and holds a civil post under the State, would not bar such ex-servicemen from applying for appointment to any other civil post under the State, and claim the benefit of being an ex-serviceman more than once. 6. 5. The mere fact that an ex-serviceman is employed by the State Government and holds a civil post under the State, would not bar such ex-servicemen from applying for appointment to any other civil post under the State, and claim the benefit of being an ex-serviceman more than once. 6. With regards the petitioners contention that, of the 49 posts advertised for appointment as Commercial Tax Officers, 5% reservation for ex-servicemen would require 2 posts to be reserved for that category, and no post was filled up by ex-servicemen, the stand of the Public Service Commission, in its counter affidavit, is that, as against a total of 61 vacant posts, 49 posts of Commercial Tax Officers were to be filled up under the General Category; as against 3 posts reserved for ex-servicemen, 4 ex-servicemen are already working in the department; therefore, all the 49 posts of Commercial Tax Officers were filled up with General Category candidates; and no posts were reserved for the ex-servicemen. Even if 5% reservation for ex-servicemen is computed on the 61 vacant posts, only 3 posts would be required to be earmarked for ex-servicemen and, as it is evident from the table annexed to the counter affidavit filed the Public Service Commission that 4 ex-service men are already working as Commercial Tax Officers, the Public Service Commission cannot be faulted in not filling up any of the 49 vacant posts of Commercial Tax Officers with ex-servicemen. 7. Viewed from any angle, we find no merit in the writ petitions warranting grant of the relief sought for. The writ petitions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. 8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.