(Judgment of the Court was made by HULUVADI G.RAMESH, J.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents on the point.
2. It appears that the appellant/writ petitioner is shown to have applied under the wards quota for selection to the post of Sub Inspector of Police during the year 2001. It also appears that the claim of wards quota has not been considered by the selection committee on account of the Government Order being issued in that regard. The learned single Judge, while considering the case of the appellant/writ petitioner, has rejected her request holding that she was not eligible to be appointed under the BC category, of which she belongs to, for not securing the cut-off mark of 50. In this regard, the learned single Judge has also observed that on an earlier occasion, when a direction was issued to the State to consider the legality of the 10% reservation in the writ petition filed by a similarly placed person, the State has approached the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court also has set aside the said direction. As a matter of fact, at the relevant point of time, the appointments were made/filled up from the open quota and the 10% reservation vacancy was not implemented as per the Government Order. Now at this stage, the appellant cannot reiterate that she should have been considered under the wards quota. Even otherwise, the appellant cannot contend that had she been considered under the wards quota she would have been selected, on ifs and buts. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed. No costs.