EWS Reservation Not Applicable to Recruitment Processes Initiated Before UP Act No. 10 of 2020: Allahabad High Court - 2024-02-29

Covering Law & Justice.

Allahabad High Court: EWS Reservation Not Applicable to Teacher Recruitment Initiated Before 2020 Act

Allahabad, UP – February 29, 2024 – The Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Saurabh ShyamShamshery , has dismissed a batch of petitions seeking the implementation of Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) reservation in the recruitment process for 69,000 Assistant Teacher posts in Uttar Pradesh. The court ruled that the EWS reservation, introduced by the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Economically Weaker Section) Act, 2020, would not apply to recruitment processes initiated prior to the Act's commencement.

Case Background and Key Questions

The petitioners, aspiring Assistant Teachers in Uttar Pradesh, had sought the benefit of 10% EWS reservation based on the 103rd Constitutional Amendment and subsequent state government orders. They argued that since the notification for the 69,000 teacher posts was issued on May 16, 2020, after the constitutional amendment and the state's initial adoption of EWS reservation through an Office Memorandum (OM) dated February 18, 2019, the EWS quota should be applicable.

The core legal questions before the court were:

Whether the EWS reservation, as per the 103rd Constitutional Amendment and the UP government's OM of February 18, 2019, applies to the teacher recruitment notification dated May 16, 2020.

Whether the selection process commenced with the Government Order of December 1, 2018, for the Assistant Teachers Recruitment Examination-2019 (ATRE-2019), which predates the constitutional amendment.

What is the effect of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Economically Weaker Section) Act, 2020, on this issue?

Arguments Presented

Petitioners’ Counsel , led by Senior Advocate G.K. Singh , contended that the crucial date for applying reservation is the date of advertisement for the posts, which they argued was May 16, 2020. They emphasized that the EWS reservation was adopted in principle by the state through the OM dated February 18, 2019, and a roster system was published on August 13, 2019. Relying on a Full Bench judgment of the same court in Prashant Kumar vs. State of U.P. , they argued that reservation rules applicable on the last date of application should be considered. They further argued that ATRE-2019 was merely a qualifying exam and not the commencement of the selection process itself, citing a Division Bench ruling in Raghvendra Pratap Singh and others vs. State of U.P.

Respondents’ Counsel , representing the State of Uttar Pradesh, argued that the recruitment process commenced with the Government Order dated December 1, 2018, initiating the ATRE-2019. They asserted that since this date was prior to the EWS reservation provisions, these provisions could not be retrospectively applied to an ongoing recruitment process. They referred to counter affidavits stating that the software for the recruitment process was developed before the EWS reservation came into effect. They also cited a coordinate bench judgment in Mahendra Pal and others vs. State of U.P. , supporting their stance.

Court's Reasoning and Decision

Justice Shamshery meticulously examined the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Economically Weaker Section) Act, 2020, particularly Section 1 (commencement date), Section 2(c) (definition of public services), Section 3 (reservation provision), Section 7 (validation of OM dated 18.02.2019), and crucially, Section 13 (savings clause).

The court highlighted Section 13 of the Act, which explicitly states:

> “The provisions of this Act shall not apply to cases in which selection process has been initiated before commencement of this Act and such cases shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of law and Government order as they stood before the commencement.”

The Act is deemed to have come into force on February 1, 2019, but the court noted the savings clause clarified that it would not apply retrospectively to ongoing recruitment processes initiated before its commencement. The court observed that the selection process for the 69,000 Assistant Teachers was initiated before August 31, 2020 (the date the Act was published), and therefore, the Act's provisions, including EWS reservation, were not applicable.

Analyzing the Office Memorandum dated February 18, 2019, the court acknowledged that it indicated the state's intent to provide EWS reservation. However, Justice Shamshery emphasized that an Act holds greater legal weight than an OM.

> "An Act has always more legal value in compare to any Office Memorandum, therefore in case of any ambiguity, provisions of Act No. 10 of 2020 would prevail. Section 7 of U.P. Act No. 10 of 2020 provides that O.M. dated 18.02.2019 shall be deemed to have issued under said scheme and O.M. was provided legal sanctity only after aforesaid Act was come into force and not before it and since procedure for selection for 69000 posts of Assistant Teachers was commenced prior to 31.08.2020, therefore, State of U.P. was not legally bound to provide EWS reservation in said recruitment process."

Ultimately, the court concluded that the State of Uttar Pradesh was not legally obligated to provide EWS reservation in the recruitment process for 69,000 Assistant Teachers as this process was initiated before the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Economically Weaker Section) Act, 2020, came into effect. Consequently, all writ petitions were dismissed.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment clarifies the prospective application of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Economically Weaker Section) Act, 2020. It underscores that reservation policies, unless explicitly stated otherwise, generally do not apply retroactively to recruitment processes already underway when the policy is enacted. This ruling will likely impact future interpretations of the Act's applicability and reinforce the importance of the "savings clause" in determining the temporal scope of new legislation concerning reservation in public services.