Service Law:
Reservation – Shifting of candidates of reserved category to open category – Validity of – In selection process,3295 vacancies remained unfilled – As per direction of Supreme Court further process of selection undertaken and select list prepared on 11.11.2019 – Writ petition challenging the select list dated 11.11.2019 alleging that the candidates who were earlier selected against reserved categories, were shifted to general category – Prayed for re-working the select-list – Held: The candidates who were initially selected in their respective reserved categories, depending on their merit were entitled to be put in general/open category – Such exercise cannot be termed as illegal or invalid.
Dismissing the petition, the Court
HELD: 1. Selection in respect of 3295 posts was undertaken in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in Ashish Kumar Yadav case and the State Government and its functionaries were obliged to go strictly in order of merit and apply the principle of reservation. [Para 8][923-E-F]
2. It is not the grievance of the petitioners that any candidate who had secured marks lesser than the petitioners, has been selected. The challenge is to the shifting of candidates, who were earlier selected against posts meant for reserved categories, to the open category. [Para 7][923-D]
3. The process adopted by the State Government as is discernable from the affidavit of compliance shows that List-I dealt with the candidates selected in ‘Open Category’ while Lists II, III and IV pertained to the candidates selected in ‘OBC/SC/ST categories’ respectively. List-I comprised of two kinds of candidates. First, those who were initially selected in their respective vertical reserved categories (OBC/SC/ST), but depending on their merit, were found entitled to be put in ‘Open Category’; and secondly, new candidates who were selected on the basis of their merit in various categories. Break up of 1906 candidates who were considered in ‘Open Category’ was thus clearly set out. [Para 6][923-B-D]
4. With the availability of 3295 additional posts, in the reworking exercise, if the candidates who were already selected against reserved posts were entitled to be considered against open category posts, that exercise cannot be termed as illegal or invalid on any count. These 3295 posts were part of the same selection process initiated in 2013 for filling up 41610 posts and as such the adjustment was rightly done by the State. [Para 8][923-E-F]
Saket Kumar and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 2015 SCC OnLine Allahabad 1250; Hanuman Dutt Shukla and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Others (2018) 16 SCC 447; Ashish Kumar Pandey and 24 others vs. State of U.P and 29 others 2016 SCC OnLine ALL 187;
Upendra and others vs. State of U.P. and others 2018
(7) ADJ 37 (2 e); Ashish Kumar Yadav and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20015 of 2018 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.