Merit-based selection requires inclusion of qualified candidates from reserved categories in the unreserved list at the preliminary examination stage, ensuring compliance with equality and fairness principles.

JUDGMENT :

AJIT KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Himanshu Singh, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Nipun Singh, Sri Naman Agarwal and Sri Ritaj Vikram Singh, learned Advocates appearing for the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission and Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State of Uttar Pradesh and other State respondents.

2. All these three petitions since raise common question of law, they have been heard simultaneously and are now being decided by this common judgment.

3. The subject matter of controversy arising in all these petitions relate to preparation of result of preliminary examination conducted by Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘Commission’) for the purposes of selection and appointment upon different categories of posts in the Departments under the State, namely Assistant Engineer (Civil/ Mechanical) and likewise posts falling in Group-B, Grade-2 post of District Horticulture Officer/ Food Processing Officer in the department of Agriculture and Senior Technical Assistant, Group – A post in different branches of Chemistry/ Botany/ Agronomy/ Plant Protection and Development. In all 604 posts were initially advertised in total 5 groups by the Commission vide advertisement No. A-9/E-1/2024 dated 17.12.2024 inviting applications from eligible candidates. Later on 5 posts were added totalling to 609 posts. The petitioners in these petitions have applied for the posts of Civil/ Mechanical Engineer pursuant to the advertisement and also some of the petitioners have applied for Group-B posts of District Horticulture Officer/Food Processing Officer and Group-A category posts Senior Technical Assistants in different branches, Chemistry/ Botany/Agronomy/ Plant Protection and Development.

4. For the purpose of statement of facts, legal pleas taken and reference made to certain Rules that are applicable in connection with the matter, writ petition in the matter of Rajat Maurya & 41 others v. State of U.P. & 6 Others being Writ – A No. 8788 of 2025, is taken up as a leading petition.

5. There is no quarrel as to number of vacancies, the preliminary examination (screen test) conducted by the Commission. The dispute erupted only upon result being published on 26.05.2025 qualifying only 7358 candidates against 609 vacancies which according to the petitioners was not in consonance with clause 11(8) of the advertisement.

6. In order to appreciate the controversy and before I deal with the arguments advanced on behalf of rival parties, I consider it appropriate to refer to the important clauses of the advertisement and the U.P. Direct Recruitment through Public Service Commission Preliminary Examination Rules, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘Rules, 1986’) and the The Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1994’). Clauses 11(8), 11(13) and 11(14) of the advertisement relevant for in the case, are reproduced hereunder:

“11. IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS FOR CANDIDATES:-

(8). On the basis of the result of Preliminary Examination, fifteen times candidates to the number of vacancies shall be declared successful for the Main Examination and three times candidates to the number of vacancies shall be called for the interview.

(13. The minimum efficiency standard for S.C. & S.T. candidates is fixed 3