Supreme Court: In the case relating to the appointments to the post of Police Constables in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the 3-judge bench of UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ., has upheld State Government’s decision of shifting of candidates, who were earlier selected against posts meant for reserved categories, to the open category.
The Court has held,
“With the availability of 3295 additional posts, in the re-working 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.”
In the present case,
- By issuing an advertisement on 20.06.2013, selection process was undertaken to fill up 41610 posts of Police Constables [U.P. Civil Police/Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC)/Fireman]. The petitioners had participated in the selection process as candidates of General Category.
- After the requisite examinations, results were declared on 16.07.2015, in which 38315 candidates were successful. Thus, as on that date, there were vacancies which were not filled as no suitable candidates were available. About 2312 vacancies had remained unfilled and additionally, there were 982 vacancies arising out of causes such as nonreporting of the selected candidates.
- In the circumstances, the Supreme Court in Ashish Kumar Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1968 issued following directions:
“It is accepted by the learned counsel for the State that the State did not undertake any process of selection in respect of those 2312 vacancies. In the circumstances it is directed:
-
- A) The State shall within a month from today complete the entire process of selection in respect of 2312 vacancies strictly in accordance with law.
- B) The State shall follow the principle of reservation while filling up these 2312 vacancies.
- C) While filling up these vacancies, the State shall adhere to the minimum required qualifying marks as devised during the process of selection but subject to this, the State shall consider all eligible candidates and go strictly in order of merit.
- D) The State shall before the next date of hearing, shall file a list of all the selected candidates.
It is also accepted that apart from these 2312 vacancies, there are still 982 vacancies to be filled up in the original selection.”
- Consequently, selection in respect of 3295 posts was undertaken in accordance with the aforementioned direction and hence, certain candidates coming from ‘Reserved Categories’, who were initially selected against Reserved Categories’ seats, were now shown against ‘Open Category’ in the list published on 11.11.2019.
According to the petitioners in the present case, this shifting prejudiced the chances of ‘Open Category’ candidates and that there should not have been any adjustment of the candidates who were already selected in ‘Reserved Categories’ and all those seats should have been made available to the ‘Open Category’.
In response, the State gave details about the last selected candidates in various categories and has stated that the last selected person in ‘General Male Category’ was one Pawan Singh (having secured 313.616 marks). Except the petitioners at serial Nos. 22 and 24, who had secured 313.616 marks, none of the 48 petitioners had secured marks in excess of 313.616. It was stated that since large number of candidates had secured exactly 313.616 marks, tiebreaker principle was adopted in which these two petitioners got eliminated.
Upholding the selection process, the Court held that the selection in respect of 3295 posts was undertaken in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in Ashish Kumar Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1968 and the State Government and its functionaries were obliged to go strictly in order of merit and apply the principle of reservation.
[Pramod Kumar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 223, decided on 16.03.2021]
*Judgment by: Justice UU Lalit
Appearances before the Court by:
For petitioners: Senior Advocate P. S. Patwalia
For State: Additional Advocate General Vinod Diwakar,
For Intervenors: Senior Advocates B. P. Patil and Vinay Navare