IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
Vipin Kumar Maurya and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors. - Respondent
Writ A No. 11039 of 2018, 28355, 45551 of 2017, 11393, 13033 of 2018, 45518, 45548 of 2017
Decided On : 16-01-2019
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1. U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Commission') has been established by the State of Uttar Pradesh for recruitment etc. to subordinate services in different departments of the State, pursuant to The U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission Act, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act of 2014'), vide Act No. 20 of 2014. A notification, thereafter, was issued on 15.12.2014, exercising powers conferred under section 2 of the Act of 2014; whereby, all appointments in the grade pay between Rs. 1900-Rs. 4600 in different departments of the State were brought within the purview of the Commission. The Commission, consequently, issued Advertisement No. 14 of 2015, initiating recruitment for 1,377 posts of Junior Engineer and other technical posts for various State Departments. Last date for submitting application was notified as 14.10.2015. Procedure for making appointment, qualification and eligibility along with reservation for different categories were specified in the advertisement itself. The prospective candidates were required to apply online, by specifying their credentials as well as the category etc.
2. Clause 11 of the advertisement specified that reservation would be admissible to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward category candidates in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reservation Act of 1994') and the applicable executive instructions. Similarly, horizontal reservation was also provided for specified categories in accordance with the provisions of The U.P. Public Services (Reservation For Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reservation Act of 1993'). Horizontal reservation for women, with which we are concerned herein, stands specified at 20% in the respective vertical category. Such horizontal reservation has been provided pursuant to a Government Order dated 26.2.1999 as modified vide subsequent Govt. Orders dated 30.8.1999 and 9.1.2007.
3. Horizontal reservation has been restricted to the dependents of freedom fighter/disabled person (only against specified post)/ex-serviceman, and women who are original residents of the State of Uttar Pradesh alone. Clause 14 of the advertisement contains general instructions. Sub-clause (3) thereof provides that candidates, who are not the original residents of the State of Uttar Pradesh, will not be entitled to vertical and horizontal reservations. Clause 14(3) of the advertisement reads as under:
¼14½3% vuqlwfpr tfr] vuqlwfpr tutkfr] vU; fiNM+k oxZ] Lora+=rk laxzke lsukuh ds vkfJr@HkwriwoZ lSfud] fodykaxtu rFkk efgyk vH;fFkZ;ksa dks] tks m0iz0 jkT; ds ewy fuoklh ugha gS] mUgsa vkj{k.k dk ykHk vuqeU; ugha gSA ,sls vH;FkhZ lkekU; Js.kh ds ekus tk,axsA efgyk vH;fFkZ;ksa ds ekeys esa firk i{k ls fuxZr izek.k i= gh ekU; gksxkA^^
4. Sub-Clause (14) of clause 14 of the advertisement also reiterates the above stipulation while clarifying that in case of women candidate, the certificate of original resident of State would be acceptable from paternal side. Sub-clause(14) of clause 14 of the advertisement is reproduced herein below:
^^14¼14½ % vuqlwfpr tkfr] vuqlwfpr tutkfr] vU; fiNM+k oxZ] Lora=rk laxzke lsukuh ds vkfJr] efgyk vH;fFkZ;ksa] HkwriwoZ lSfudksa rFkk fodykaxtu] dks tks mRrj izns'k ds ewy fuoklh ugha gS] mUgsa vkj{k.k dk ykHk vuqeU; ugha gS] ,sls vH;FkhZ vukjf{kr ¼lkekU;½ Js.kh ds ekus tk;saxsA efgyk vH;fFkZfu;ksa ds ekeys esa firk i{k ls fuxZr izek.k&i= gh ekU; gksxkA^^
5. The advertisement further provides that applicants would be allowed to appear in the written examination provisionally, on the basis of information feeded in the online application form and if it is found, at the time of scrutiny, that applicant was not eligible in terms of the a
Buddhi Nath Cahudhary & Ors. v. Akhil Kumar & Ors.
Govt. of A.P. v. P.B. Vijayakumar
Independent Thought vs. Union of India and others
M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore
M.S. Mudhol (Dr.) & Anr. v. S.D. Halegkar & Ors.
Munindra Kumar & Ors. v. Rajiv Govil & Ors.
Rajesh Kumar and others Vs. State of Bihar and others
Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission
Ran Vijay Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan
Tridip Kumar Dingal Vs. State of West Bengal
Union of India and others vs. K. P. Prabhakaran
Vijay Laxmi vs. Punjab University and others
Vikas Pratap Singh and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.