Petitioner challenged rejection of candidature for OBC Police Constable post, claiming higher marks than OBC cut-off. Court held General category cut-off controls per Supreme Court precedent. Writ dismissed.
The writ petition was dismissed with no orders of appointment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4186 of 2022
Petitioner :- Renu Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kedar Nath Mishra,Samarath Singh,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
completed and ultimately declared vide notification dated 22.03.2015 with the cut of mark for General Female Category as 274.8928.
" Heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri K.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
Case was heard on 29.09.2021 and the Court had passed the following order:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Devesh Vikaram, learned Standing Counsel for State- respondents.
Learned Standing Counsel submitted that an identical matter has been decided by the Apex Court in the case of Saurav Yadav and others Vs. State of U.P.; 2021 (1) ESC 206 (SC). Further, he prays for and is granted one week time to produce the said judgement before the Court.
Put up this case on 6.10.2021 in additional cause list."
Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Standing Counsel has not disputed that the controversy involved in this petition is similar, but submitted that in the case of Saurav Yadav (supra), it was held that claim of the petitioner can only be considered in case there exists any vacancy and no selected candidates shall be disturbed.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that matter of the petitioner was remanded to respondent no. 2 to consider his case in light of judgment in the case of Saurav Yadav (supra) subject to availability of vacancy for which learned Standing Counsel has no objection.
Under such facts and circumstances of the case, writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent no. 2 to consider the case of the petitioner and decide the same in light of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Saurav Yadav (supra) maximum within a period of six weeks from the date of production of computer
generated copy of the order in case there exists any vacancy. In case there exists no vacancy, respondent no. 2 shall pass order to this effect within the same period.
Order Date :- 6.10.2021 "
" 37. Having come to the conclusion that the Appellant No.1 and similarly situated candidates had secured more marks than the last candidates selected in 'Open/General Category', the logical consequence must be to annul said selection and direct the authorities to do the exercise de novo in the light of conclusions arrived at by us. However, considering the facts that those selected
candidates have actually undergone training and are presently in employment and that there are adequate number of vacancies available, we mould the relief and direct as under:-
a) All candidates coming from 'OBC Female Category' who had secured more marks than 274.8928, i.e. the marks secured by the last candidate appointed in 'General Category–Female' must be offered employment as Constables in Uttar Pradesh Police.
b) Appropriate letters in that behalf shall be sent to the concerned candidates within four weeks.
c) If the concerned candidates exercise their option and accept the offer of employment, communications in that behalf shall be sent by the concerned candidates within two weeks.
d) On receipt of such acceptance, the codal and other formalities shall be completed within three weeks.
e) Letters of appointment shall thereafter be issued within a week and the concerned candidates shall be given appropriate postings.
f) For all purposes, including seniority, pay fixation and other issues, the employment of such candidates shall be reckoned from the date the appointment orders are issued.
g) The employment of General Category Females with cut off at 274.8928 as indicated by the State Government in its affidavits referred to in paragraphs 5 and 8 hereinabove are not to be affected in any manner merely because of this judgment.
38. Since it has been accepted that none of the candidates coming from 'SC Female Category' had secured more marks than 274.8298, the claims of the Applicant no.2 and all similarly situated candidates are rejected."
" In view of the materials placed on record, as also for the reasons recorded above, this Court is of the considered opinion that petitioners having scored marks above the cut off fixed for female (open category candidates) cannot be denied consideration for appointment only for the reason that they cannot be given benefit of reservation twice. The Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2019) 5 ALJ 466, which endorsed such view, has not been approved in Saurav Yadav (supra). In paragraph 23 of the Supreme Court judgment in Saurav Yadav (supra), the Full Bench judgment of this Court has been referred to as the "second view". In paragraphs 31 and 32 the Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"31. The second view is thus neither based on any authoritative
pronouncement by this Court nor does it lead to a situation where the merit is given precedence. Subject to any permissible reservations i.e. either Social (Vertical) or Special (Horizontal), opportunities to public employment and selection of candidates must purely be based on merit. Any selection which results in candidates getting selected against Open/General category with less merit than the other available candidates will certainly be opposed to principles of equality. There can be special dispensation when it comes to candidates being considered against seats or quota meant for reserved categories and in theory it is possible that a more meritorious candidate coming from Open/General category may not get selected. But the converse can never be true and will be opposed to the very basic principles which have all the while been accepted by this Court. Any view or process of interpretation which will lead to incongruity as highlighted earlier, must be rejected."
11 As such, no benefit can be derived by petitioner from aforesaid judgement.
rejected
Digitally signed by YASHWANT KUMAR Date: 2022.05.26 18:05:40 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner secured less marks than the General category cut-off can claim appointment in the OBC reserved category under Supreme Court directions.
Whether the Supreme Court directions in Saurav Yadav permit selection of OBC candidates with marks lower than the General category candidates when vacancies exist.
Whether the impugned rejection order based on General category cut-off is sustainable in law.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Saurav Yadav and others Vs. State of U.P.Applied¶14
Saurav Yadav and others Vs. State of U.P.; 2021 (1) ESC 206 (SC)
Saurav Yadav and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and othersApplied¶23
Saurav Yadav and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2021 (4) SCC 542 · Who else cites this
Km. Ruchi Yadav and 15 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 othersReferred¶36
Km. Ruchi Yadav and 15 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others
Km. Priyanka Yadav and another Vs. State of U.P. and 11 othersReferred¶36
Km. Priyanka Yadav and another Vs. State of U.P. and 11 others
Ajay Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and othersDistinguished¶37
Ajay Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2019) 5 ALJ 466
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Renu Yadav
State Of U.P.
Additional Secretary (Recruitment) Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotional Board, Lucknow
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
