PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. on 16 March 2021

1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India praysfor following reliefs: - C

A.Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamusdirecting the Respondents to consider the Petitioners forappointment to the post of Constable PAC & Fireman seatsmeant for General Category Male Candidates in PAC &Fireman Posts which remained unfilled till date; andD

B.Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamusdirecting the Respondents to rectify the final select list dated11.11.2019 in terms of three parameters i.e. merit,preference and reservation.

EF

1.1 The principal grounds raised in the petition are:- “I. Because there are 958 seats where candidates who made it inoriginal select list in their reserve category in Constable (Civil)were wrongly shifted to open category on different cadre i.e.PAC and Fireman without actually changing their cadre as theyare all working on the said post (Constable Civil) for last 3 years.Had the aforesaid 958 seats were not wrongly overlapped thenthe Petitioners would have made their place in the list publishedon 11.11.2019 by the Board.

II. Because, admittedly, the Respondents had filled up only 1650seats out of 2016 seats meant for male general category candidatesin various select list till date in Constable PAC Post and 446 seatsout of 1038 seats meant for male general category candidates invarious select list till date in Constable Fireman Post.”

G

2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition, in brief, are as H

under:-

AA)By issuing an advertisement on 20.06.2013, selectionprocess was undertaken to fill up 41610 posts of PoliceConstables [U.P. Civil Police/Provincial ArmedConstabulary (PAC)/Fireman]. The petitioners hadparticipated in the selection process as candidates ofGeneral Category.

B

B)After the requisite examinations, results were declared on16.07.2015, in which 38315 candidates were successful.Thus, as on that date, there were vacancies which werenot filled as no suitable candidates were available.

C)In Saket Kumar and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.[1], theCHigh Court of Judicature at Allahabad, was concerned withthe process of selection for Sub-Inspectors in U.P. Police,which process was going on simultaneously with the instantselection. The High Court dealt with the issue where thecandidates had used blades or whiteners while answeringDtheir answer papers of the main examination. By its orderdated 29.05.2015, the High Court had disqualified all suchcandidates and directed that their names be deleted fromthe selection list.

In the appeal arising therefrom, this Court in its decisionin Hanuman Dutt Shukla and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. andEOthers[2], held that those candidates who had used blades orwhiteners ought not to have been disqualified. However,by that time, the process of selection, in terms of the decisionof the High Court in Saket Kumar[1], had gone ahead andthe seniority list was already re-worked in terms of saidFdecision. This Court, therefore, observed that the candidateswho had been selected as a result of directions in SaketKumar[1], should not be thrown out from the process ofselection, but those who had used blades or whiteners begiven the advantage in a notional selection. It was alsoobserved that the additional number of candidates so selectedGshould be reckoned as against additional posts and shouldnot be taken to be the part of the original posts for selection.

D)The same principles were adopted in the selection processfor Police Constables and consequently, the candidates who

1 2015 SCC OnLine Allahabad 1250 (Writ.A.No. 67782 of 2014 etc.)H2 (2018) 16 SCC 447

had used blades or whiteners were considered in the instantprocess of selection. The selection list was re-worked andit was found that 4429 candidates were entitled to be giventhe advantage in terms of law declared in Hanuman DuttShukla[2].

E)In the meantime, decisions were rendered by the High Courtin Ashish Kumar Pandey and 24 others vs. State of U.Pand 29 others[3] and Upendra and others vs. State of U.P.and others[4], touching upon the issue of horizontal reservationwith which we are not presently concerned, except for thefact that the seats remaining vacant as a result of non-availability of candidates for the concerned horizontalreservation categories, became available for the sameselection process.

F)In the instant case concerning selection of police constables,about 2312 vacancies had remained unfilled and additionally,there were 982 vacancies arising out of causes such asnon-reporting of the selected candidates. In thecircumstances, this Court in its Order dated 24.07.2019passed in IA No. 103934 of 2018 and connected applicationsin Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20015 of 2018 (AshishKumar Yadav and ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh andors.) issued following directions:- “It is accepted by the learned counsel for the State thatthe State did not undertake any process of selection inrespect of those 2312 vacancies. In the circumstancesit is directed:

A) The State shall within a month from today completethe entire process of selection in respect of 2312vacancies strictly in accordance with law.

B) The State shall follow the principle of reservationwhile filling up these 2312 vacancies.

C) While filling up these vacancies, the State shalladhere to the minimum required qualifying marks asdevised during the process of selection but subjectto this, the State shall consider all eligible candidatesand go strictly in order of merit.

3 2016 SCC OnLine ALL 187 (Writ A. No. 37599 of 2015)

4 2018 (7) ADJ 37 : Writ C. No. 3417 of 2016

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

D) The State shall before the next date of hearing, shallfile a list of all the selected candidates.

A

It is also accepted that apart from these 2312 vacancies,there are still 982 vacancies to be filled up in the originalselection.”

B

G) Therefore, further process of selection for 3295[5]posts was undertaken and the results were declaredon 11.11.2019. The breakup of said 3295 posts wasas under:

C

D

H) In the affidavit of compliance filed on behalf of theState Government following details were submitted:- “E. Details of result of selected 3295 candidates asper Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order E

In compliance of above order of Hon’ble Courtfollowing lists and details of last selected candidatesare attached herewith.

(I) List-1- candidates selected in open category-1906

F

This list contains –

(a) The names of candidates who have alreadybeen selected in their respective verticalcategory (OBC/SC/ST) but presently find theirpositions in open category after redrawing themerit on the basis of their merit irrespective oftheir social category and gender.

G

(b) New candidates purely on the basis of their meritirrespective of their social category.

5 (according to the aforesaid Order dated 24.07.2019, the vacancies would be 3294,Hbeing total of 2312+982. However, according to the State, the actual figure was 3295)

PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

A copy of the List I is annexed hereto and markedas Annexure A-1

F.List-2– candidates selected in OBC category– 1849 (1118+731)

Since 1118 candidates belonging to OBCEcategory, have already been selected and findtheir position in present open category list dueto their higher merit hence 1118 unselected OBCcandidates have been selected in lieu of selectedcandidates and 731 candidates have beenFselected afresh as against their respective 731vacancies. It is submitted that this list contains1849 names.

E

A copy of the List II is annexed hereto and markedas Annexure A-2

G

G.List-3- the candidates selected in SC category– 733 (132+601)

Since 132 candidates belonging to SC category,have already been selected and find theirposition in present open category list due to theirhigher merit so 132 unselected SC candidates H

have been selected in lieu of selected candidatesand 601 candidates have been selected afreshas against their respective 601 vacancies. It issubmitted that this list contains 733 names.

A

A copy of the List III is annexed hereto and markedas Annexure A-3

B

H. List-IV- candidates selected in ST category-59(02+57)

Since 02 candidates, belonging to ST category,have already been selected and find theirposition in present open category list due to theirhigher merit, so 02 unselected ST candidateshave been selected in lieu of selected candidatesand 57 candidates have been selected afreshas against their respective 57 vacancies. It issubmitted that this list contains 59 names.

C

D

A copy of the List IV is annexed hereto and markedas Annexure-A-4"

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed submitting inter aliathat certain candidates coming from ‘Reserved Categories’, who wereinitially selected against Reserved Categories’ seats, were now shownEagainst the ‘Open Category’ in the list published on 11.11.2019 and, thus,the chances of ‘Open Category’ candidates to that extent stoodprejudiced. According to the petitioners, there should not have been anyadjustment of the candidates who were already selected in ‘ReservedCategories’ and all those seats should have been made available to theF‘Open Category’. In this light, the principal grounds as quoted hereinaboveare raised and the prayer for re-working of the select list dated 11.11.2019is made.

4. In the affidavit-in-reply filed in the present matter, marksobtained by all the petitioners have been set out. The State has givenGdetails about the last selected candidates in various categories and hasstated that the last selected person in ‘General Male Category’ was onePawan Singh (having secured 313.616 marks). Except the petitionersat serial Nos. 22 and 24, who had secured 313.616 marks, none of the48 petitioners had secured marks in excess of 313.616. It is also statedthat since large number of candidates had secured exactly 313.616 marks,H

tiebreaker principle was adopted in which these two petitioners goteliminated.

5. We have heard Mr. P. S. Patwalia, learned Senior Advocatefor the petitioners, Mr. Vinod Diwakar, learned Additional AdvocateGeneral for the State and Mr. B. P. Patil and Mr. Vinay Navare, learnedSenior Advocates for Intervenors.

6. The process adopted by the State Government as is discernablefrom the affidavit of compliance shows that List-I dealt with the candidatesselected in ‘Open Category’ while Lists II, III and IV pertained to thecandidates selected in ‘OBC/SC/ST categories’ respectively. List-Icomprised of two kinds of candidates. First, those who were initiallyselected in their respective vertical reserved categories (OBC/SC/ST),but depending on their merit, were found entitled to be put in ‘OpenCategory’; and secondly, new candidates who were selected on thebasis of their merit in various categories. Break up of 1906 candidateswho were considered in ‘Open Category’ was thus clearly set out.

7. It is not the grievance of the petitioners that any candidate whohad secured marks lesser than the petitioners, has been selected. Thechallenge is to the shifting of candidates, who were earlier selected againstposts meant for reserved categories, to the open category.

8. Selection in respect of 3295 posts was undertaken in accordancewith the directions issued by this Court in Ashish Kumar Yadav andOrs. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (supra) and the StateGovernment and its functionaries were obliged to go strictly in order ofmerit and apply the principle of reservation. With the availability of 3295additional posts, in the re-working exercise, if the candidates who werealready selected against reserved posts were entitled to be consideredagainst open category posts, that exercise cannot be termed as illegal orinvalid on any count. These 3295 posts were part of the same selectionprocess initiated in 2013 for filling up 41610 posts and as such theadjustment was rightly done by the State.

9. We, therefore, see no merit in this petition which is accordinglydismissed.

Kalpana K. Tripathy

Petition dismissed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H