Shivam Pandey vs State Of U. P. - 2024 Supreme(All) 584

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 584

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Shivam Pandey And Others – Appellants
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
Writ A No. 4063 of 2020, WRIT - A No. - 4382 of 2023, WRIT - A No. - 1180 of 2022, WRIT - A No. - 6624 of 2022, WRIT - A No. - 11883 of 2023, WRIT - A No. - 1322 of 2024, WRIT - A No. - 13225 of 2020, WRIT - A No. - 13603 of 2022, WRIT - A No. - 1595 of 2021, WRIT - A No. - 19493 of 2022, WRIT - A No. - 20948 of 2022, WRIT - A No. - 3522 of 2023, WRIT - A No. - 3573 of 2022, WRIT - A No. - 4634 of 2023, WRIT - A No. - 4701 of 2020, WRIT - A No. - 5048 of 2020, WRIT - A No. - 506 of 2023, WRIT - A No. - 5385 of 2020, WRIT - A No. - 5673 of 2023, WRIT - A No. - 5806 of 2023, WRIT - A No. - 5867 of 2020, WRIT - A No. - 6022 of 2023, WRIT - A No. - 7859 of 2020, WRIT - A No. - 916 of 2023, WRIT - A No. - 2722 of 2024,
Decided on : 29-02-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Seemant Singh, Abhishe Pandey, Irshad Ali, Anand Kumar Tiwari, Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi, Navin Kumar Sharma, Anil Kumar Singh Bishen, Anurag Tripathi, Satya Prakash Tripathi, Rajan Tripathi, Alok Kumar Srivastava, Deo Prakash Singh
For the Respondent: Arun Kumar, Archana Singh, Arun Kumar, Vikram Bahadur Singh

Headnote:
EWS Reservation - Assistant Teachers Recruitment - U.P. Act No. 10 of 2020, Sections 1, 2(c), 3, 7, 13 - The court considered the applicability of EWS reservation to the selection process for Assistant Teachers Recruitment in Uttar Pradesh. It analyzed the effect of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for EWS) Act, 2020, and relevant Office Memorandums. The court held that the EWS reservation provisions of U.P. Act No. 10 of 2020 would not apply to cases initiated before its commencement and that the State was not legally bound to provide EWS reservation in the recruitment process initiated prior to the enactment of the Act. Therefore, the relief sought by the petitioners was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners participated in the Assistant Teachers Recruitment Examination-2019 (ATRE-2019) conducted on 06.01.2019 under the Unreserved (General) category. The State Government initiated the selection process for 69000 Assistant Teachers on 16.05.2020. The petitioners sought EWS reservation after the 103rd Constitutional Amendment and the adoption of EWS reservation by the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 10 of 2020 regarding EWS reservation would not apply to cases initiated before its commencement. It held that the State was not legally bound to provide EWS reservation in the recruitment process initiated prior to the enactment of the Act. Therefore, the relief sought by the petitioners was dismissed.
Issues: The issues before the court included the applicability of EWS reservation to the selection process for Assistant Teachers Recruitment, the effect of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, and the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for EWS) Act, 2020.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of U.P. Act No. 10 of 2020, its saving clause, and the legal obligations of the State regarding EWS reservation in recruitment processes initiated before the enactment of the Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed all writ petitions as the relief sought by the petitioners could not be granted.

JUDGMENT :

1. Issue before this Court for consideration are -:

(i) “Whether in pursuance of 103rd Amendment in Constitution of India dated 12.01.2019, whereby provision for 10% reservation to Economically Weaker Sections (for short “EWS”) and adopted by State of Uttar Pradesh through Office Memorandum dated 18.02.2019) would be applicable to a Notification dated 16.05.2020 issued by State Government in regard to selection on 69000 posts of Assistant Teachers?”

(ii) “Whether selection process would consider to be commenced when on 01.12.2018 (i.e. before Constitutional Amendment), when State Government issued a Government Order for conducting Assistant Teachers Recruitment Examination-2019 (for short “ATRE-2019”), a qualifying examination to participate in above referred selection process? and;

(iii) “What would be effect of Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Economically Weaker Section) Act, 2020?”

2. It is case of petitioners that on 01.12.2018, the State Government issued a Government Order for conducting “ATRE-2019”, which was conducted on 06.01.2019. The petitioners have participated in said examination under Unreserved (General) category and result thereof was issued on 12.05.2020, wherein all petitioners were qualified i.e. have scored more than minimum qualifying marks.

3. It is further case of petitioners that on 16.05.2020, the State Government initiated further process of selection of 69000 posts of Assistant Teachers for appointment in primary education in State of U.P. Meanwhile, in pursuance of 103rd Amendment in Constitution, petitioners have got their EWS certificate issued by competent Authority and they have represented before concerned respondents to provide 10% reservation of EWS.

4. The petitioners approached this Court in June, 2023. During pendency of their writ petition, process of selection was completed and petitioners were not selected since they were placed lower in merit.

5. Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by S/Sri Seemant Singh, Anurag Tripathi, Irshad Ali and Rahul Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for petitioners in all writ petitions have vehemently submitted that State was under obligation to provide 10% EWS reservation in examination in question since it was held after above referred 103rd Constitutional Amendment was notified as well as subsequent to Office Memorandum dated 18.02.2019, whereby in principal EWS reservation was adopted by the State of Uttar Pradesh.

6. In order to substantiate his arguments, learned Senior Advocate for petitioners has referred a notification issued by State of U.P. dated 13.08.2019, whereby in pursuance of O.M. dated 18.02.2019, a roster system was published.

7. Learned Senior Advocate for petitioners in order to further substantiate his argument has vehemently placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in Prashant Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others, 2005 (4) ESC (All) 2395, wherein following question was referred for consideration -:

“At what stage the caste of a candidate should be entered in the Schedule I of the U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 for him to get benefit as an OBC candidate; should it be before the notification/advertisement of the selections, or the written test, or the oral test (in case of oral test only), or the declaration of the result.”

8. Above referred question was answered by the Full Bench in following terms -:

“The benefit of reservation to Other Backward Class’ candidates in selection in Public Services by direct recruitment as provided by U.P. Public Service(Reservation for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Class) Act, 1994, is applicable, to only those categories or castes which are notified as Other Backward Classes entered in Schedule I of the Act, upto the last date of filling up of the application form for such selections, provided there is no contrary provision in the Service Rules, the ter