SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(UK) 204

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ramesh Ranganathan, R.C. Khulbe, JJ.
Rajneesh Dwivedi - Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand And Others - Respondent
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 139 of 2019
Decided On : 24-07-2020

Advocates Appeared:
Subhash Upadhyaya, Advocate, Pradeep Joshi, Advocate, B.D. Kandpal, Advocate, Piyush Garg, Advocate

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Procedure and Conduct of Business Rules, 2013 - Rules 15, 25 - Selection process for Assistant Professor in Physical Chemistry - Petitioner challenged selection process, arguing that candidates selected under reserved category shouldn't qualify for general posts without securing respective cut-off - Court held challenge untenable as selection followed proper procedure; all candidates merit-based in the interview should partake in selection for general posts. (Paras 1, 7, 72)

(B) Reservation and Selection - Principles governing migration of candidates from reserved to general category - Rules allow candidates from reserved categories to be appointed against general posts if found more meritorious than general category candidates - Lower qualifying marks for reserved categories at screening test not invalidating their merit in interviews. (Paras 63, 69)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner did not get selected during recruitment for Assistant Professor; argued candidates from reserved categories secured lower marks than general category cut-offs but were still considered for general posts. (Paras 5, 7)

Findings of Court:
The appointment process was deemed valid; selection criteria adhered to rules ensuring meritocracy across categories. (Paras 71, 72)

Issues: Whether reserved category candidates can be appointed to general posts despite securing less than cut-off marks for the general category during screening test. (Paras 9, 71)

Ratio Decidendi: Selection under the interview was valid, irrespective of cut-off marks in screening test, emphasizing merit in final appointments for Assistant Professor positions. (Paras 71, 72)

Result: Writ Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. jurisdiction under article 226. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. challenge to selection process validity. (Para 2 , 7)
3. petitioner's criteria for selection process. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. legal framework for reservations. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. regulations affirming varying qualifying marks. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
6. purpose of screening tests. (Para 25 , 26)
7. migration from reserved to general category. (Para 39 , 40)
8. judicial interpretations regarding relaxation in criteria. (Para 41 , 42)
9. importance of executive orders for reservations. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56)
10. procedural integrity in selection of candidates. (Para 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67)
11. court's validation of selection process. (Para 68 , 69 , 70 , 71)
12. dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 72)

JUDGMENT

Ramesh Ranganathan, C.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- -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 t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top