IMPORTANT POINT
Appointment – State Government and its functionaries are obliged to go strictly in order of merit and apply principle of reservation.

JUDGMENT :

UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.

1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India prays for following reliefs: -

A. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to consider the Petitioners for appointment to the post of Constable PAC & Fireman seats meant for General Category Male Candidates in PAC & Fireman Posts which remained unfilled till date; and

B. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to rectify the final select list dated 11.11.2019 in terms of three parameters i.e. merit, preference and reservation.

1.1 The principal grounds raised in the petition are: -

"I. Because there are 958 seats where candidates who made it in original select list in their reserve category in Constable (Civil) were wrongly shifted to open category on different cadre i.e. PAC and Fireman without actually changing their cadre as they are all working on the said post (Constable Civil) for last 3 years. Had the aforesaid 958 seats were not wrongly overlapped then the Petitioners would have made their place in the list published on 11.11.2019 by the Board.

II. Because, admittedly, the Respondents had filled up only 1650 seats out of 2016 seats meant for male general category candidates in various select list till date in Constable PAC Post and 446 seats out of 1038 seats meant for male general category candidates in various select list till date in Constable Fireman Post."

2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition, in brief, are as under:-

(A) 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.

(B) 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.

(C) In Saket Kumar and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. [2015 SCC OnLine Allahabad 1250 (Writ. A.No. 67782 of 2014 etc.)], the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, was concerned with the process of selection for Sub-Inspectors in U.P. Police, which process was going on simultaneously with the instant selection. The High Court dealt with the issue where the candidates had used blades or whiteners while answering their answer papers of the main examination. By its order dated 29.05.2015, the High Court had disqualified all such candidates and directed that their names be deleted from the selection list.

[5](according to the aforesaid Order dated 24.07.2019, the vacancies would be 3294, being total of 2312+982. However, according to the State, the actual figure was 3295)

In the appeal arising therefrom, this Court in its decision in Hanuman Dutt Shukla and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2018) 16 SCC 447, held that those candidates who had used blades or whiteners ought not to have been disqualified. However, by that time, the process of selection, in terms of the decision of the High Court in Saket Kumar [2015 SCC OnLine Allahabad 1250 (Writ. A.No. 67782 of 2014 etc.)], had gone ahead and the seniority list was already re-worked in terms of said decision. This Court, therefore, observed that the candidates who had been selected as a result of directions in Saket Kumar[2015 SCC OnLine Allahabad 1250 (Writ. A.No. 67782 of 2014 etc.)], should not be thrown out from the process of selection, but those who had used blades or whiteners be given the advantage in a notional selection. It was also observed that the additional number of candidates so selected should be reckoned as against additional posts and should not be taken to be the part of the original posts for selection.

(D) The same principles were adopted