Supreme Court of India Jitendra Kumar Singh & Anr vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 8 January, 2010 Author: S S Nijjar Bench: Tarun Chatterjee, Surinder Singh Nijjar REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.74 OF 2010 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1952 OF 2008) JITENDRA KUMAR SINGH AND ANR. ....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ......RESPONDENT(S) WITH Civil Appeal No.75 /2010 (@ SLP (C) No. 1967 of 2008) WITH Civil Appeal No.79 /2010 (@ SLP (C) No. 1959 of 2008) WITH Civil Appeal No.80 /2010 (@ SLP (C) No. 7739 of 2008) WITH Civil Appeal Nos.76-78 /2010 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 14078-14080 of 2008) WITH Civil Appeal No.81 /2010 63. As noticed earlier, the learned Single Judge despite taking note of the averments made in the supplementary counter affidavit by the State, erroneously issued directions to recalculate the vacancies reserved for outstanding sportspersons. It was specifically pointed out that a separate advertisement had been published for recruitment on the post reserved for outstanding sportsperson. It was also pointed out that all the posts available in the category of sportsmen were filled up in the subsequent selection. No post remained unfilled. Therefore, the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that the (29 SICP) + (5 PC) i.e. 34 posts ought not to have been deducted from the available 1478 posts for the purposes of calculating the number of vacancies available to the general category, was factually erroneous. It is not disputed before us that the principle of horizontal reservation would also apply for filling up the post reserved for outstanding sportsperson. It is also not disputed before us that there could have been no carry forward of any of the post remaining unfilled in the category of outstanding sportsperson. As a matter of fact, there was no carry forward of the vacancies. They were filled in accordance with the various instructions issued by the Government from time to time. In our opinion the Division Bench erred in law in concluding that since the advertisement did not mention that a separate selection will be held, for the post reserved for sportsmen, the same would not be permissible in law. The deduction of 34 posts for separate selection would not in any manner affect the overall ratio of reservation as provided by law. Furthermore, there is no carry forward of any post. The separate selection is clearly part and parcel of the main selection. In view of the factual situation, we are of the opinion, that the conclusions recorded by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench with regard to the 34 posts reserved for the outstanding sportsmen category i.e. (29 SICP) + (5 PC) also cannot be sustained. 64. Therefore, the aforesaid appeals filed by the State and the Director General of Police are allowed. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge in the final paragraph as well as the directions issued by the Division Bench in modification of the order of learned Single Judge are set aside. ........................................J (TARUN CHATTERJEE) .........................................J (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR) NEW DELHI, JANUARY 08, 2010.