Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ramesh Ranganathan, R.C. Khulbe, JJ.
Rajneesh Dwivedi - Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others - Respondents
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 139 of 2019
Decided On : 24-07-2020
The court held that the selection process undertaken by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (UPSC) in selecting candidates for the post of Assistant Professor (Physical Chemistry) in Government Degree Colleges was valid and in accordance with the law. The court found that the lower minimum cut-off marks prescribed for candidates belonging to the reserved categories in the screening test was only to ensure that sufficient number of candidates from these categories were called for interview in the ratio of 1:3 to fill up the posts reserved in their favor. The court also held that the concession in the screening test of lower minimum marks, extended in favor of SC/ST/OBC candidates, relates to their eligibility to appear for interview and once a candidate appears for interview, he competes against all the available posts in the general category, and it matters little to which category he belongs, for all candidates are required to appear for the interview which is common to all short-listed candidates irrespective of the category to which he belongs, reserved or unreserved.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, who belongs to the general category, challenged the selection process undertaken by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (UPSC) in selecting candidates for the post of Assistant Professor (Physical Chemistry) in Government Degree Colleges. The petitioner contended that candidates selected in the screening test under their respective reserved categories could only have been considered for selection against posts earmarked for their respective reserved categories, and not under the general category. The petitioner also contended that the lower minimum cut-off marks prescribed for candidates belonging to the reserved categories in the screening test was contrary to the Rules and amounted to providing reservation in posts in the general category.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the selection process undertaken by the UPSC was valid and in accordance with the law. The court held that the lower minimum cut-off marks prescribed for candidates belonging to the reserved categories in the screening test was only to ensure that sufficient number of candidates from these categories were called for interview in the ratio of 1:3 to fill up the posts reserved in their favor. The court also held that the concession in the screening test of lower minimum marks, extended in favor of SC/ST/OBC candidates, relates to their eligibility to appear for interview and once a candidate appears for interview, he competes against all the available posts in the general category, and it matters little to which category he belongs, for all candidates are required to appear for the interview which is common to all short-listed candidates irrespective of the category to which he belongs, reserved or unreserved.
Issues: 1. Whether the lower minimum cut-off marks prescribed for candidates belonging to the reserved categories in the screening test was contrary to the Rules and amounted to providing reservation in posts in the general category? 2. Whether candidates selected in the screening test under their respective reserved categories could only have been considered for selection against posts earmarked for their respective reserved categories, and not under the general category?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the lower minimum cut-off marks prescribed for candidates belonging to the reserved categories in the screening test was not contrary to the Rules and did not amount to providing reservation in posts in the general category. The court found that the lower minimum cut-off marks was only to ensure that sufficient number of candidates from these categories were called for interview in the ratio of 1:3 to fill up the posts reserved in their favor. 2. The court held that candidates selected in the screening test under their respective reserved categories could not only be considered for selection against posts earmarked for their respective reserved categories, but also for posts in the general category on their merit.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and upheld the selection process undertaken by the UPSC.
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Ranganathan, J.
The jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been invoked by the petitioner aggrieved by the action of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (for short “the Commission”) in not selecting him for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Physical Chemistry in the Government Degree Colleges of the State. He seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the select-list dated 08.01.2019 issued by the Commission; for a mandamus to declare that the entire selection process, in making appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Physical Chemistry), is vitiated in law for not following the selection procedure prescribed by the 2010 UGC Regulations; for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to consider his candidature, for selection to the post of Assistant Professor (Physical Chemistry), in accordance with the provisions of the 2010 UGC Regulations; for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to consider his suitability and merit, vis-à-vis the private respondents, for the post of Assistant Professor (Physical Chemistry) in accordance with the 2010 UGC Regulations, by providing the benefit of reservation to the reserved category candidates, and selecting them against reserved category posts; and for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to issue appointment letters to the private respondents on the basis of the select list dated 08.01.2019.
2. Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner, would fairly state that, in the light of the order of the Division Bench in Madhu Bahuguna vs. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission & others, Judgment in Writ Petition (S/B) No.78 and 82 of 2019 dated 09.01.2020, the challenge to the validity of the selection process, on the ground that it is contrary to the 2010 UGC Regulations, may not survive; and his challenge to the selection process is now confined to the question whether candidates selected in the screening test, under the quota vertically/horizontally reserved in their favour, can be considered for selection, pursuant to the interview held thereafter, against posts in the general category.
3. Before examining the contentions urged in this regard, it is necessary to note the facts to the extent relevant. While the petitioner belongs to the general category, respondents 4 to 6 belong to the Other Backward Classes, respondents 7 and 10 belong to the Scheduled Castes, and respondents 8 and 9 belong to the Uttarakhand Women category. While vertical reservation is provided in favour of the Other Backward Classes, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, reservation is horizontally provided in favour of Uttarakhand women.
4. An advertisement was issued on 04.08.2017 inviting applications from eligible candidates, among others, for 13 posts of Assistant Professors in Physical Chemistry. Of these 13 posts, six were reserved in favour of the Scheduled Castes, one in favour of the Scheduled Tribes, two in favour of the Other Backward Classes, and four posts were left open to be filled up under the general category. Horizontal reservation was provided in favour of Uttarakhand women in one of the six posts reserved in favour of the Scheduled Castes, and in one of the four posts in the general category.
5. The Rules, which shall be referred to in detail hereinafter, stipulate that, in case the applicants received are far more than the number of candidates to be called for interview, the applicants will be short-listed for interview on the basis of a screening test. In the case on hand, a screening test was conducted and its result was declared on 15.03.2018. From out of a total of 200 marks, the cut-off marks prescribed in the screening test for the general category was 113, it was 85 marks for the OBC category, and 65 marks for the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
