PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [2021] 2 S.C.R. 915 · Decided: 16-03-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
915
PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 465 of 2020)
MARCH 16, 2021
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND
HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Service Law:
Reservation – Shifting of candidates of reserved category to
open category – Validity of – In selection process,3295 vacancies
remained unfilled – As per direction of Supreme Court further process
of selection undertaken and select list prepared on 11.11.2019 –
Writ petition challenging the select list dated 11.11.2019 alleging
that the candidates who were earlier selected against reserved
categories, were shifted to general category – Prayed for re-working
the select-list – Held: The candidates who were initially selected in
their respective reserved categories, depending on their merit were
entitled to be put in general/open category – Such exercise cannot
be termed as illegal or invalid.
Dismissing the petition, the Court
HELD: 1. Selection in respect of 3295 posts was undertaken
in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in Ashish
Kumar Yadav case and the State Government and its functionaries
were obliged to go strictly in order of merit and apply the principle
of reservation. [Para 8][923-E-F]
2. 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. [Para 7][923-D]
3. 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,
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 915
915
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
916
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
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. [Para 6][923-B-D]
4. 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.
[Para 8][923-E-F]
Saket Kumar and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 2015
SCC OnLine Allahabad 1250; Hanuman Dutt Shukla
and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Others (2018) 16 SCC
447; Ashish Kumar Pandey and 24 others vs. State of
U.P and 29 others 2016 SCC OnLine ALL 187;
Upendra and others vs. State of U.P. and others 2018
(7) ADJ 37 (2 e); Ashish Kumar Yadav and Ors. vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No. 20015 of 2018 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2018) 16 SCC 447
referred to
Para (2 c)
2018 (7) ADJ 37
referred to
Para (2 e)
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
465 of 2020
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
Vinod Diwakar, AAG, P.S. Patwalia, Vinay Navare, Neeraj Kishan
Kaul, Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Advs.,
Anurag Dubey, Rajesh Pathak, Sumit Kumar, Kumari Supriya, Binod
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
917
Mishra, Hemant Kumar, Prabodha Kumar Agrawal, Rajesh Pathak,
Mukesh Kumar Singh, Amit, Ms. Vani Vyas, Purushottam Sharma
Tripathi, Danish Zubair Khan, Ms. Garima Prashad, Ms. Nupur Dubey,
Abhishek Tripathi, Shakil Ahmed Syed, Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Uzmi
Jameel Husain, Qazi Wakeel Ahmad, Daanish Ahmed Syed, D.K. Garg,
Dhananjay Garg, Nikhil Jain, Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, Randhir Kumar
Ojha, Satish Pandey, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India prays
for following reliefs: -
A.
Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus
directing the Respondents to consider the Petitioners for
appointment to the post of Constable PAC & Fireman seats
meant for General Category Male Candidates in PAC &
Fireman Posts which remained
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.