Allahabad High Court Rules EWS Reservation Applicable from Feb 2019, Denies Relief in Teacher Recruitment Due to Completed Process

Prayagraj : In a significant ruling concerning the applicability of Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) reservation in the recruitment of 69,000 Assistant Teachers in Uttar Pradesh, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad held that EWS reservation was indeed effective in the state from February 18, 2019. However, citing the completed nature of the recruitment process, the filling of all vacancies, and the non-impleadment of affected parties, a Division Bench comprising Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra , J. and Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri , J. , ultimately declined to grant any relief to the petitioners seeking its implementation in this specific recruitment.

The batch of special appeals challenged a single-judge judgment that had denied EWS reservation on the grounds that the relevant state legislation (UP Act No. 10 of 2020) was enacted after the recruitment process commenced.

The central issue before the Division Bench was two-fold: the effective date of EWS reservation in Uttar Pradesh and the date of commencement of the recruitment process for the 69,000 Assistant Teachers.

Appellants argued that EWS reservation, introduced by the 103rd Constitutional Amendment on January 12, 2019, was implemented in UP via an office memorandum dated February 18, 2019, and subsequently validated retrospectively by UP Act No. 10 of 2020, which was deemed effective from February 1, 2019. They contended that the recruitment commenced with the advertisement published on May 17, 2020, by which date EWS reservation was already in force.

Conversely, the State respondents argued that the recruitment process initiated with the government order dated December 1, 2018, for conducting the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination (ATRE), which was a prerequisite for appointment. This date predated the introduction of EWS reservation. They also highlighted that the recruitment was complete and all positions were filled.

The Division Bench first examined the effective date of EWS reservation in the state. It noted that the 103rd Constitutional Amendment enabled states to provide EWS reservation. The court reaffirmed the principle that the executive power of the State, under Article 162 of the Constitution, is co-extensive with its legislative power. Therefore, the State was competent to introduce EWS reservation through an executive instruction (office memorandum) dated February 18, 2019, even before the formal enactment of the UP Act No. 10 of 2020. Crucially, the court pointed out that the Act itself was given retrospective effect from February 1, 2019, and expressly deemed the office memorandum of February 18, 2019, to have been issued under the Act.

"Measures taken by the State of U.P. to introduce EWS reservation by exercising its executive power and then clothing it with legislative cover is clearly a permissible course in the eyes of law," the court observed, adding, "Once that be the position, it would be difficult for this Court to accept that the EWS reservation will commence from 31.8.2020 and not from 18.2.2019 when office memorandum was issued by the State providing for EWS reservation in employment of State."

On the second question regarding the commencement of recruitment, the court referred to Rule 14 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers Service) Rules, 1981. It noted that Rule 14(1) outlines the procedure, starting with the determination of vacancies and holding the ATRE, followed by an advertisement for recruitment. The court concluded that, as per the rules and in line with previous judicial pronouncements (including the Lucknow Bench decision in Raghvendra Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P.), the recruitment process commences with the issuance of the advertisement, which in this case was May 17, 2020.

Based on these findings, the court held that EWS reservation was required to have been extended by the State in the recruitment process, as it was effective from February 18, 2019, prior to the commencement of recruitment on May 17, 2020.

However, the court then addressed the practicalities of granting relief at this stage. It acknowledged that the recruitment process had concluded, all 69,000 vacancies were filled, and the selected candidates were not made parties to the appeals. Implementing EWS reservation now would necessitate ousting 10% of the unreserved category candidates, which is not permissible without hearing them. Furthermore, the court noted the lack of information regarding candidates' EWS status in the application forms, making it impossible to identify eligible individuals or prepare a merit list. The court also took note of the State's submission that many appellants held B.Ed. degrees and might be ineligible based on recent Supreme Court judgments.

Considering these "subsequent developments which have intervened," the Division Bench found it would not be a prudent exercise of discretion to issue directions to implement EWS reservation at this stage. Directing adjustment against unadvertised vacancies was also deemed contrary to recruitment rules and potentially violative of Article 16 rights of other eligible candidates.

Ultimately, while disagreeing with the single judge's reasoning on the effective date of EWS reservation, the Division Bench upheld the dismissal of the writ petitions, concluding that "on account of subsequent developments which have intervened... we are not persuaded to grant any relief to the appellants."

The judgment, delivered on May 8, 2025, clarifies the application date of EWS reservation in Uttar Pradesh but highlights the limitations on judicial intervention in completed recruitment processes, especially when granting relief would impact third parties not before the court.