ORDER 1. This bunch of petitions are filed by two-set of petitioners challenging the Police Constable Recruitment Test, 2020, alleging that while making such recruitment, horizontal compartment wise reservation policy has not been implemented for the Ex-servicemen and similarly, in another set of petitions, it is alleged that posts which were meant for women constables for which advertisement was issued, at least five times of the women candidates should have been called for the second round of selection but, in place of calling five times the number of posts reserved for women under each of the categories meant for vertical reservation, a common list of selection was issued causing inequal treatment to the women candidates. 2. Shri Narinder Pal Singh Ruprah and Shri Dinesh Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cdr Amit Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and others, 2022 SCC Online SC 1570, to point out that respondents have not disclosed the cut-off marks under each of the categories and the non-disclosure of relevant material to the affected party and its disclosure in a sealed-cover to the adjudicating authority, sets a dangerous precedent. The disclosure of relevant material to the adjudicating authority in a sealed cover makes the process of adjudication vague and opaque. The disclosure in a sealed cover perpetuates two problems. Firstly, it denies the aggrieved party their legal right to effectively challenge an order since the adjudication of issues has proceeded on the basis of unshared material provided in a sealed cover. The adjudicating authority while relying on material furnished in the sealed cover arrives at a finding which is then effectively placed beyond the reach of challenge. Secondly, it perpetuates a culture of opaqueness and secrecy. 3. The adjudicating authority while relying on material furnished in the sealed cover arrives at a finding which is then effectively placed beyond the reach of challenge. Secondly, it perpetuates a culture of opaqueness and secrecy. 3. Reliance is placed on the provisions contained in Madhya Pradesh Exservicemen (Reservation of Vacancies in the State Civil Services and Posts Class III and Class IV) Rules, 1985 (for brevity, ''Rules of 1985'') to submit that that sub-rule (3) of Rule 4, which deals with the reservation of vacancies provides as under :-- ''4(3) No vacancy reserved for Ex-servicemen in a post to be filled otherwise than on the results of an open competition examination, shall be filled by the appointing authority by any general candidate, until and unless said authority-- (i) has obtained a ''Non-availability Certificate'' from the Employment Exchange (Where a requisition is placed on an Employment Exchange); (ii) has verified the non-availability of a suitable candidate by reference to the Director General, Resettlement and recorded a certificate to that effect; and (iii) has obtained approval of the State Government.'' 4. Therefore, it is submitted that the posts which were meant for Exservicemen could not have been diverted to the General category candidates or the candidates of different categories where the horizontal reservation for Exservicemen is provided. 5. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Security Association of India and another v. Union of India and others, (2014) 12 SCC 65 and reading first two lines of para 51 of the said judgment, it is submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that ''It is evident from the above that the subject-matters of the two acts are substantially different and the conflict in the operation of the two Acts is incidental.'' 6. Thus, it is pointed out that even if reservation in promotion or the scheme of recruitment provides for not carrying forward the post meant for women candidates or for Ex-servicemen but, in case of Ex-servicemen in view of the provisions contained in sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of the Rules of 1985, there could not have been any denial of carry forward of the vacancies meant for Exservicemen and they should have been left vacant to be filled from amongst Exservicemen only. 7. 7. It is further submitted that if sufficient number of candidates were not available either belonging to the women category or Ex-servicemen category on the basis of general standard to fill all the vacancies reserved for them then, relaxed standard of selection should have been adopted to make up the deficiency in the reserved quota subject to the condition that such relaxation will not affect the level of performance by such candidates. 8. It is submitted that advertisement was issued on 8.1.2021 for selection. 10% percent posts were reserved for Ex-servicemen as a special reservation to be applied horizontally and 33% were reserved for women candidates. All the petitioners appeared in the recruitment test. They did not find their names in the selection list. They noticed that no relaxation was given in the matter of cut-off marks for the Ex-servicemen and similarly, no relaxation was given for women candidates and arbitrarily and illegally those posts were sought to be filled through non-women and non-Ex-servicemen candidates, violating the spirit of horizontal and compartment wise reservation. 9. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kishoribhai Khamanchand Goyal v. The State of Gujarat and another, (2003) 12 SCC 274 , reading para 8 and 9 Shri Ruprah submits that once there is a statutory provision in the form and shape of 1985 Rules then, that could not have been violated, inasmuch as, there is no doctrine of implied repeal. 10. It is submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kishoribhai Khamanchand Goyal (supra), in para 8 has held as under :-- ''8. The doctrine of implied repeal is based on the theory that the legislature, which is presumed to know the existing law, did not intend to create any confusion by retaining conflicting provisions and, therefore, when the Court applies the doctrine it does no more than give effect to the intention of the legislature by examining the scope and the object of the two enactments and by a comparison of their provisions.'' 11. In para 9, it is held that ''The determinative test as noted above is whether the enactments are sharply conflicting or are inconsistent and/or repugnant.'' 12. In para 9, it is held that ''The determinative test as noted above is whether the enactments are sharply conflicting or are inconsistent and/or repugnant.'' 12. Thus, it is submitted that the Rules framed by the State Government or the Employees Selection Board will not overrule the statutory provisions, especially in case of Ex-servicemen and, therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed and it be directed that the posts which are reserved for Ex-servicemen, be filled from amongst Ex-servicemen only. 13. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saurav Yadav and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2021) 4 SCC 542 , wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court after recording salient features of vertical reservation, has held as under :-- (1) They cannot be filled by the open category, or categories of candidates other than those specified and have to be filled by candidates of the social category concerned only (SC/ST/OBC). (2) Mobility (''migration'') from the reserved (specified category) to the unreserved (open category) slot is possible, based on meritorious performance. (3) In case of migration from reserved to open category, the vacancy in the reserved category should be filled by another person from the same specified category, lower in rank. (4) If the vacancies cannot be filled by the specified categories due to shortfall of candidates, the vacancies are to be ''carried forward'' or dealt with appropriately by rules. 14. It is submitted that the posts which were meant for women and Exservicemen could not have been filled and no migration should have been permitted. 15. Shri Rahul Diwakar, learned counsel for the respondent-Employees Selection Board, in his turn, submits that the petitions are misconceived. It is submitted that examinations were conducted strictly in terms of the description which was forwarded by the Police Headquarters and no variation has been made in the said format. 16. It is further submitted that Clause 1.15.2 of the Brochure issued in this behalf, categorically provides that candidates will be entitled to apply only for one Group of posts, out of the 14 Groups. In the second round, on the basis of the performance in the written examination from every Group and for each caste Group, candidates will be called in the ratio of five times the number of vacancies in the said Group/caste sub-Group. In the second round, on the basis of the performance in the written examination from every Group and for each caste Group, candidates will be called in the ratio of five times the number of vacancies in the said Group/caste sub-Group. Thus, it is submitted that candidates were to be called for under each category of vertical reservation in the ratio of 1:5 of number of vacancies and not in relation to the horizontal reservation. 17. It is further submitted that once a list of five times the number of candidates of SC/ST/OBC and others is prepared then, horizontal reservation was to be effected and only those women and Ex- servicemen candidates will be entitled to such horizontal reservation, who will secure cut-off marks more than the last selected candidate in their vertical category. Thus, it is evident that petitioners having failed to make a mark in their vertical category and having failed to secure marks more than the last selected candidate in each of their vertical categories, are not entitled to stake their claim merely on the basis of horizontal reservation. 18. Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Government Advocate for the respondents-State also supports the stand of the Professional Examination Board and submits that the judgment of this Court in case of Aditi Tiwari and others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (W.P. No.8757 of 2022, decided on 26 th April, 2022), will be applicable in full force. Candidates were to be called in the ratio of five times the number of posts and then, reservation is to be applied and candidates are not required to be called in the ratio of number of posts meant for horizontal reservation. 19. Reliance is also placed on a decision of a coordinate Bench at the Allahabad High Court in Bhuvnesh Pachouri Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (Writ Appeal No.2736 of 2016, decided on 27.11.2016) enclosed as Annexure R-2, wherein Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has held that argument of the petitioner that after he failed to secure the cut-off marks, since the post of horizontal category to which he belongs were lying unfilled, therefore, by lowering the cut-off marks, he should have been called for interview, was rejected on the ground that once the petitioner submitted himself to the procedure of selection and became unsuccessful, he cannot turn around and protest against the terms of process of selection. The theory of approbate and reprobate estopps him from doing so. 20. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, two issues emerge, namely, whether candidates are to be called for the second round of selection on the basis of number of seats reserved for each of the categories under the horizontal reservation in the same ratio which is applicable to vertical reservation or not? Secondly, whether the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Ex-servicemen (Reservation of Vacancies in the State Civil Services and Posts Class III and Class IV) Rules, 1985, will deemed to be illegally repealed by virtue of the information brochure issued by the Employees Selection Board while publishing the Rules for conduct of the examination? 21. As far as first question is concerned, in Union of India and others v. M. Selvakumar and another, (2017) 3 SCC 504 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not accept the contention of the physically handicapped candidates and refused to increase the number of attempts for physically handicapped candidates belonging to OBC category in civil service examination on account of their horizontal reservation. 22. In case of Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Baloji Badhavath and others, (2009) 5 SCC 1 , the question had arisen before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as to whether shortlisting of candidates for main examination of Group-I services in the State of Andhra Pradesh in ratio of 1 : 50 to total number of vacancies basing on preliminary examination, and nonfixation of community wise cut-off marks infringed the right to reservation of candidates belonging to the reserved communities? 23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court answered the aforesaid in the following terms :-- ''18. The Constitution of India lays down provisions both for protective discrimination as also affirmative action. Reservation of posts for the disadvantaged class of people as also seats in educational institutions are provided for by reason of Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Reservation made for the members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes would, however, is subject to Article 335 of the Constitution of India. Concededly, no citizen of India can claim reservation as a matter of right. The provisions contained in Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India are merely enabling provisions. Reservation made for the members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes would, however, is subject to Article 335 of the Constitution of India. Concededly, no citizen of India can claim reservation as a matter of right. The provisions contained in Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India are merely enabling provisions. No writ of or in the nature of mandamus, thus, could be issued.'' Thus, it is evident that reservation cannot be sought as a matter of right. 24. As far as the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saurav Yadav (supra), is concerned, while discussing the features of vertical reservation in para 59, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :-- ''60. Horizontal reservations on the other hand, by their nature, are not inviolate pools or carved in stone. They are premised on their overlaps and are ''interlocking'' reservations. As a sequel, they are to be calculated concurrently and along with the inviolate ''vertical'' (or ''social'') reservation quotas, by application of the various steps laid out with clarity in para 21.3 of Lalit, J's judgment. They cannot be carried forward. The first rule that applies to filling horizontal reservation quotas is one of adjustment i.e. examining whether on merit any of the horizontal categories are adjusted in the merit list in the open category, and then, in the quota for such horizontal category within the particular specified/social reservation.'' 25. Para 21.3 of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saurav Yadav (supra), reads as under :-- ''21.3. In Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., (1995) 5 SCC 173 , a Bench of two Judges of this Court explained the concept of overall reservation as against compartmentalised reservation and detailed the steps to be undertaken while filling up seats for vertical and horizontal reservation as under : ''15. On a careful consideration of the revised notification of 17.12.1994 and the aforementioned corrigendum issued by the Lucknow University, we are of the opinion that in view of the ambiguous language employed therein, it is not possible to give a definite answer to the question whether the horizontal reservations are overall reservations or compartmentalised reservations. We may explain these two expressions. Where the seats reserved for horizontal reservations are proportionately divided among the vertical (social) reservations and are not intertransferable, it would be a case of compartmentalised reservations. We may explain these two expressions. Where the seats reserved for horizontal reservations are proportionately divided among the vertical (social) reservations and are not intertransferable, it would be a case of compartmentalised reservations. We may illustrate what we say: take this very case; out of the total 746 seats, 112 seats (representing fifteen per cent) should be filled by special reservation candidates; at the same time, the social reservation in favour of Other Backward Classes is 27% which means 201 seats for OBCs; if the 112 special reservation seats are also divided proportionately as between OC, OBC, SC and ST, 30 seats would be allocated to the OBC category; in other words, thirty special category students can be accommodated in the OBC category; but say only ten special reservation candidates belonging to OBC are available, then these ten candidates will, of course, be allocated among OBC quota but the remaining twenty seats cannot be transferred to OC category (they will be available for OBC candidates only) or for that matter, to any other category; this would be so whether requisite number of special reservation candidates (56 out of 373) are available in OC category or not; the special reservation would be a watertight compartment in each of the vertical reservation classes (OC, OBC, SC and ST). As against this, what happens in the overall reservation is that while allocating the special reservation students to their respective social reservation category, the overall reservation in favour of special reservation categories has yet to be honoured. This means that in the above illustration, the twenty remaining seats would be transferred to OC category which means that the number of special reservation candidates in OC category would be 56 20 = 76. Further, if no special reservation candidate belonging to SC and ST is available then the proportionate number of seats meant for special reservation candidates in SC and ST also get transferred to OC category. The result would be that 102 special reservation candidates have to be accommodated in the OC category to complete their quota of 112. The converse may also happen, which will prejudice the candidates in the reserved categories. It is, of course, obvious that the inter se quota between OC, OBC, SC and ST will not be altered. 16. The result would be that 102 special reservation candidates have to be accommodated in the OC category to complete their quota of 112. The converse may also happen, which will prejudice the candidates in the reserved categories. It is, of course, obvious that the inter se quota between OC, OBC, SC and ST will not be altered. 16. Now coming to the revised notification of 17.12.1994, it says that 'horizontal reservation be granted in all medical colleges on total seats of all the courses …'. These words are being interpreted in two different ways by the parties; one says it is overall reservation while the other says it is compartmentalised. Para 2 says that the candidates selected under the aforesaid special categories 'would be kept under the categories of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Other Backward Classes/General to which they belong. For example, if a candidate dependent on a freedom fighter selected on the basis of reservation belongs to a Scheduled Caste, he will be adjusted against the seat reserved for Scheduled Castes'. This is sought to be read by the petitioners as affirming that it is a case of compartmentalised reservation. May be or may not be. It appears that while issuing the said notification, the Government was not conscious of the distinction between overall horizontal reservation and compartmentalised horizontal reservation. At any rate, it may not have had in its contemplation the situation like the one which has arisen now. This is probably the reason that this aspect has not been stated in clear terms. 17. It would have been better - and the respondents may note this for their future guidance - that while providing horizontal reservations, they should specify whether the horizontal reservation is a compartmental one or an overall one. As a matter of fact, it may not be totally correct to presume that the Uttar Pradesh Government was not aware of this distinction between ''overall horizontal reservation'' and ''compartmentalised horizontal reservation'', since it appears from the judgment in Swati Gupta v. State of U.P., (1995) 2 SCC 560 that in the first notification issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh on 17.5.1994, the thirty per cent reservation for ladies was split up into each of the other reservations. For example, it was stated against backward classes that the percentage of reservation in their favour was twenty-seven per cent but at the same time it was stated that thirty per cent of those seats were reserved for ladies. Against every vertical reservation, a similar provision was made, which meant that the said horizontal reservation in favour of ladies was to be a ''compartmentalised horizontal reservation''. We are of the opinion that in the interest of avoiding any complications and intractable problems, it would be better that in future the horizontal reservations are compartmentalised in the sense explained above. In other words, the notification inviting applications should itself state not only the percentage of horizontal reservation(s) but should also specify the number of seats reserved for them in each of the social reservation categories viz. ST, SC, OBC and OC. If this is not done there is always a possibility of one or the other vertical reservation category suffering prejudice as has happened in this case. As pointed out hereinabove, 110 seats out of 112 seats meant for special reservations have been taken away from the OC category alone - and none from the OBC or for that matter, from SC or ST. It can well happen the other way also in a given year. 18. Now, coming to the correctness of the procedure prescribed by the revised notification for filling up the seats, it was wrong to direct the fifteen per cent special reservation seats to be filled up first and then take up the OC (merit) quota (followed by filling of OBC, SC and ST quotas). The proper and correct course is to first fill up the OC quota (50%) on the basis of merit; then fill up each of the social reservation quotas i.e. SC, ST and BC; the third step would be to find out how many candidates belonging to special reservations have been selected on the above basis. If the quota fixed for horizontal reservations is already satisfied - in case it is an overall horizontal reservation - no further question arises. But if it is not so satisfied, the requisite number of special reservation candidates shall have to be taken and adjusted/accommodated against their respective social reservation categories by deleting the corresponding number of candidates therefrom. If the quota fixed for horizontal reservations is already satisfied - in case it is an overall horizontal reservation - no further question arises. But if it is not so satisfied, the requisite number of special reservation candidates shall have to be taken and adjusted/accommodated against their respective social reservation categories by deleting the corresponding number of candidates therefrom. (If, however, it is a case of compartmentalised horizontal reservation, then the process of verification and adjustment/accommodation as stated above should be applied separately to each of the vertical reservations. In such a case, the reservation of fifteen per cent in favour of special categories, overall, may be satisfied or may not be satisfied.) Because the revised notification provided for a different method of filling the seats, it has contributed partly to the unfortunate situation where the entire special reservation quota has been allocated and adjusted almost exclusively against the OC quota.'' Thus, it is evident that the post meant for horizontal reservation cannot be carried forward. 26. As far as issue raised by Shri N.S. Ruprah in regard to rule 4 of the Rules of 1985 is concerned, the language of the Rules is unambiguous. It says that no vacancy reserved for Ex- servicemen in a post to be filled otherwise than on the results of an open competitive examination, shall be filled by the appointing authority by any general candidate, until and unless the said authority does three things which are provided in sub-rule (3) of Rule 4. 27. Thus, it is evident that this Rule has no application for filling up of vacancy on the basis of an open competitive examination and thus, neither the question of implied repeal will be applicable nor that of conflict in the operation of the two statutes. Thus, law laid down in case of Kishoribhai Khamanchand Goyal (supra), and Security Association of India (supra), will have no application to the facts and circumstances of the case. 28. Thus, law laid down in case of Kishoribhai Khamanchand Goyal (supra), and Security Association of India (supra), will have no application to the facts and circumstances of the case. 28. Thus, when the scheme of the examination is crystal clear that candidates in the ratio of five times the number of posts are to be called for, in terms of each of the vertical compartment and then, from amongst those horizontal reservation posts are to be filled, merit could not have been diluted by either diluting the benchmark requirement or extending the list so to accommodate five times the candidates from each of the horizontal category Group. Thus, the first issue is answered in Negative. It is held that candidates are required to be called for in a prescribed ratio only in terms of the vertical categories and not in terms of horizontal reservation categories. 29. As far as second issue is concerned, there is neither any implied repeal nor any conflict in the scheme of examination floated by the Employees Selection Board and the Rules of 1985. Since there is a provision in the Rules itself and also the ratio of law in case of Saurav Yadav (supra), in para 60 it is crystal clear that there cannot be any carry forward of post meant for horizontal reservation, on the basis of the undertaking furnished by Shri Rahul Diwakar that none of the candidates who have been recommended for appointment, had secured lesser marks than the petitioners in the first round of examination, posts meant for Ex-servicemen or women under the horizontal reservation, cannot be subjected to carry forward merely because sufficient number of women/Exservicemen candidates did not qualify under the scheme of calling five times the number of candidates for which posts were advertised in each group under vertical reservation categories. 30. Thus, petitions fail and are hereby dismissed.