Back
2020 Supreme(All) 605
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANISH KUMAR, J.
Rohit Verma - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy. Higher Edu. Lukcnow & Ors. - Respondent
Service Single No. 20476, 19881 of 2019
Decided On : 17-06-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Girish Chandra Verma
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Anuj Kudesia, Ashwani Kumar Agnihotri, Gaurav Mehrotra, Utsav Mishra, Vinod Kumar Singh
Point of law:
Once a candidate appears in the examination pursuant to a concession granted by the Service Commission, cannot be treated as less meritorious candidate who are entitled to be appointed to open category post even though having obtained higher marks. The Apex Court held that a relaxation or concession given at the preliminary stage, cannot have any relevance in determining the merit of the candidate.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14, 16 – U.P. Higher Education Services Commission(Procedure for Selection of Teachers) Regulations, 2014 – Regulation 6(2) – U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 – Section 3(6) – Appointment – Notification of – Writ Petitions is notification issued by U.P. Higher Education Services Commission – By said notification Commission has called candidates for interview in ratio of 1:5 under three categories i.e. General, OBC and SC/ST as per the cut off marks determined categorywise as obtained in the written examination – Held, By eliminating reserved category candidate with higher marks at the intermediate stage itself namely, prior to interview amounts to final rejection of the candidature before completion of process of selection – Regulations 2014 cannot be read in contravention of provision of an Act and the Constitution – Harmonious construction has to be made reading provisions of Regulations,2014, Section 3(6)of U.P. Act No. 4 of 1994 and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India – Position that emerges out is that a reserved category candidate shall not be debarred from further selection if the candidate has scored higher marks than cut off marks fixed for the candidates belonging to unreserved category called for the interview – Petitioners can be granted relief without quashing the selection process held so far, it is hereby directed that the petitioners having higher marks than last candidate of unreserved category called for the interview, the petitioners, since have approached the court, shall be allowed in the further process of selection, against the unreserved seats, namely in the interview – Writ Petitions Allowed (Paras 42, 45, 46)
Fact of the case:
Case are that notification no. 47 was issued by the Commission inviting applications for selection on the post of Assistant Professor in 33 subjects including 273 posts in Sociology bifurcating in three categories i.e. 167 posts for unreserved category, 63 posts for OBC category and 43 posts for SC & ST category, which is the subject matter of the present writ petitions.Against 167 vacancies of unreserved category, 838 candidates were called for interview and the last candidate called has scored 103.33 marks in the written examination. Against 63 vacancies for OBC Category, 385 candidates were called and the last candidate has scored 133.34 marks. Under the SC/ST category, 217 candidates were called for interview against 43 vacancies and the last candidate has scored 112.36 marks. The candidates were called in ratio of 1 :5 in each category.
Finding of the Court:
By eliminating reserved category candidate with higher marks at the intermediate stage itself namely, prior to interview amounts to final rejection of the candidature before completion of process of selection – Regulations 2014 cannot be read in contravention of provision of an Act and the Constitution – Harmonious construction has to be made reading provisions of Regulations,2014, Section 3(6)of U.P. Act No. 4 of 1994 and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India – Position that emerges out is that a reserved category candidate shall not be debarred from further selection if the candidate has scored higher marks than cut off marks fixed for the candidates belonging to unreserved category called for the interview – Petitioners can be granted relief without quashing the selection process held so far, it is hereby directed that the petitioners having higher marks than last candidate of unreserved category called for the interview, the petitioners, since have approached the court, shall be allowed in the further process of selection, against the unreserved seats, namely in the interview.
Result: Writ Petitions Allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. The controversy involved in both the aforesaid writ petitions is similar in nature, therefore, the same is decided by a common judgment.
2. Under challenge in the writ petitions i.e. Writ Petition No. 20476 (S/S) of 2019, Rohit Verma Versus State of U.P. and Others and Writ Petition No. 19881 (S/S) of 2019, Ayush Ranjan Chaudhary and Another Versus State of U.P. and Others, is the notification no. 47 dated 24-06-2019 issued by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission, Allahabad (hereinafter referred as 'Commission' in short). By the said notification the Commission has called the candidates for interview in the ratio of 1:5 under three categories i.e. General, OBC and SC/ST as per the cut off marks determined categorywise as obtained in the written examination.
3. The petitioners belong to Other Backward Class category i.e. OBC and cut off marks determined for the OBC category candidates called for interview is 130.34 whereas for the general category candidates, the cut off marks is 103.37.
4. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 20476(S/S) of 2019, has secured 125.84 marks whereas the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 19881(S/S) of 2019 have secured 125.44 and 116.48 marks respectively in the written examination.
5. The brief facts of the case are that notification no. 47 was issued by the Commission inviting applications for selection on the post of Assistant Professor in 33 subjects including 273 posts in Sociology bifurcating in three categories i.e. 167 posts for unreserved category, 63 posts for OBC category and 43 posts for SC & ST category, which is the subject matter of the present writ petitions.
6. Against 167 vacancies of unreserved category, 838 candidates were called for interview and the last candidate called has scored 103.33 marks in the written examination. Against 63 vacancies for OBC Category, 385 candidates were called and the last candidate has scored 133.34 marks. Under the SC/ST category, 217 candidates were called for interview against 43 vacancies and the last candidate has scored 112.36 marks. The candidates were called in ratio of 1 :5 in each category.
7. The selection has two stages, viz the written examination and thereafter interview. According to Regulation 6(2) of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission(Procedure for Selection of Teachers) Regulations, 2014(In short referred as 'Regulations, 2014'), candidates have been called for interview in the ratio of 1:5 by determining the cut of marks categorywise i.e. General, OBC and SC/ ST. The petitioners of both the writ petitions were not called for interview in any of the categories for the reason that they have not fallen within the cut off marks fixed for the OBC category candidates.
8. The grievance of the petitioners is that the last candidate belonging to general category, who has obtained 103.37 marks has been called for interview, who is lower in merit.
9. Sri G.C.Verma and Sri Karunakar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that by not calling the petitioners for the interview, though, they have scored higher marks than the general category candidates, the Commission acted in contravention of Section 3(6) of the U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred as the U.P. Act No. 4 of Act of 1994). Sections 3(1) and 3(6) of the said Act provide as under :-
"Section 3 (1) In public services and posts, there shall be reserved at the stage of direct recruitment, the following percentages of vacancies to which recruitment are to be made in accordance with the roster referred to in sub-section (5) in favour of the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes of citizens.-
(a) in the case of Scheduled Castes twenty one percent :
(b) in the case of Scheduled Tribes two
percent :
(c) in the case of Other Backward Classes of citizens twenty seven per cent :
Provided that the reservation under cl
