Pramod Kumar Singh And Ors. vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors

Sl. No.,Category,Civil Police,PAC,Fireman,Total

1,Open,721,473,712,1906

2,OBC,615,77,39,731

3,SC,511,59,39,601

4,ST,48,6,3,57

,Total,1895,615,785,3295

The present Writ Petition has been filed submitting inter alia that certain candidates coming from ‘Reserved Categories’, who were initially",,,,,

selected against Reserved Categories’ seats, were now shown against the ‘Open Category’ in the list published on 11.11.2019 and, thus,",,,,,

the chances of ‘Open Category’ candidates to that extent stood prejudiced. According to the petitioners, there should not have been any",,,,,

adjustment of the candidates who were already selected in ‘Reserved Categories’ and all those seats should have been made available to the,,,,,

‘Open Category’. In this light, the principal grounds as quoted hereinabove are raised and the prayer for re-working of the select list dated",,,,,

11.11.2019 is made.,,,,,

In the affidavit-in-reply filed in the present matter, marks obtained by all the petitioners have been set out. The State has given details about the last",,,,,

selected candidates in various categories and has stated that the last selected person in ‘General Male Category’ was one Pawan Singh (having,,,,,

secured 313.616 marks). Except the petitioners at serial Nos. 22 and 24, who had secured 313.616 marks, none of the 48 petitioners had secured",,,,,

marks in excess of 313.616. It is also stated that since large number of candidates had secured exactly 313.616 marks, tiebreaker principle was",,,,,

adopted in which these two petitioners got eliminated.,,,,,

We have heard Mr. P. S. Patwalia, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Vinod Diwakar, learned Additional Advocate General for the",,,,,

State and Mr. B. P. Patil and Mr. Vinay Navare, learned Senior Advocates for Intervenors.",,,,,

The process adopted by the State Government as is discernable from the affidavit of compliance shows that List-I dealt with the candidates,,,,,

selected in ‘Open Category’ while Lists II, III and IV pertained to the candidates selected in ‘OBC/SC/ST categories’ respectively. List-",,,,,

I comprised of two kinds of candidates. First, those who were initially selected in their respective vertical reserved categories (OBC/SC/ST), but",,,,,

depending on their merit, were found entitled to be put in ‘Open Category’; and secondly, new candidates who were selected on the basis of",,,,,

their merit in various categories. Break up of 1906 candidates who were considered in ‘Open Category’ was thus clearly set out.,,,,,

It is not the grievance of the petitioners that any candidate who had secured marks lesser than the petitioners, has been selected. The challenge is",,,,,

to the shifting of candidates, who were earlier selected against posts meant for reserved categories, to the open category.",,,,,

Selection in respect of 3295 posts was undertaken in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in Ashish Kumar Yadav and Ors. vs. State,,,,,

of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (supra) and the State Government and its functionaries were obliged to go strictly in order of merit and apply the principle,,,,,

of reservation. With the availability of 3295 additional posts, in the re-working exercise, if the candidates who were already selected against reserved",,,,,

posts were entitled to be considered against open category posts, that exercise cannot be termed as illegal or invalid on any count. These 3295 posts",,,,,

were part of the same selection process initiated in 2013 for filling up 41610 posts and as such the adjustment was rightly done by the State.,,,,,

We, therefore, see no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.",,,,,