1. Selection process for police constables — filling of additional vacancies — dispute over shifting high-merit reserved category candidates to the open category list. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 148
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS - APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 465 of 2020
Decided on : 16-03-2021
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Appointment – State Government and its functionaries are obliged to go strictly in order of merit and apply principle of reservation.
Appointment – State Government and its functionaries are obliged to go strictly in order of merit and apply principle of reservation.
Subject
Employment Law - Recruitment and Selection
Act Referred
Headnote
Service Law – Appointment – Post of Constable PAC & Fireman seats meant for General Category Male Candidates in PAC – It is not the grievance of petitioners that any candidate who had secured marks lesser than petitioners, has been selected – Challenge is to shifting of candidates who were earlier selected against posts meant for reserved categories, to open category – State Government and its functionaries were obliged to go strictly in order of merit and apply principle of reservation – With availability of 3295 additional posts, in re-working exercise, if 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 same selection process initiated in 2013 for filling up 41610 posts and as such adjustment was rightly done by State – Petition dismissed. (Paras 7, 8 and 9)
Facts of the case:
Instant petition under Article 32 of Constitution of India prays for issuance of a Writ, Order or Direction in 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 to 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.
Findings of Court:
With availability of 3295 additional posts, in the re-working exercise, if 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.
Result : Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Parties :Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Advocate, Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Garima Prashad, Advocate, Mr. Satish Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, Advocate, Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Advocate
Advocate Appeared:
For the Parties :Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Advocate, Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Garima Prashad, Advocate, Mr. Satish Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, Advocate, Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Advocate
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners contend that shifting reserved category candidates to the open category prejudices general category candidates and that such candidates should remain in reserved seats. (Para 3 )
3. The State followed merit and reservation principles; shifting high-merit reserved candidates to the open category in a unified selection process is legal and valid. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
4. In a selection process, candidates from reserved categories who possess sufficient merit to qualify for the open category can be adjusted against open category posts. (Para 8 )
5. Writ petition dismissed. (Para 9 )
6. Can candidates from reserved categories be appointed against open category seats?
Yes, if candidates from reserved categories possess the merit required for the open category, they can be shifted to and appointed against open category posts within the same selection process. (Para 6 , 8 )
7. Does shifting high-merit reserved candidates to the open category prejudice general category candidates?
No, provided the selection is conducted strictly in order of merit and adheres to the principles of reservation, such adjustment is legal and does not invalidate the process. (Para 8 )
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 in the selection process for Police Constables and consequently, the candidates who had used blades or w
