Ashish Kumar Yadav And Others v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

The appeals arise out of the recruitment process for Police Constables in the State of Uttar Pradesh. A set of candidates—including the present appellants—were accused of having altered their answer sheets through the use of “whitener/blade/eraser, etc.” Their situation had earlier been considered by the Supreme Court, together with similarly-situated Sub-Inspector candidates, in Hanuman Dutt Shukla v. State of U.P. (2018) 16 SCC 447 (judgment dated 19-1-2016). Following that decision, the Allahabad High Court (2017 SCC OnLine All 2644) allowed the present group to submit representations; those representations were later rejected. Several candidates have since filed writ petitions challenging the rejection orders, and those petitions are presently pending before the High Court. The instant appeals were therefore brought to the Supreme Court while the High Court proceedings remained unresolved.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the benefit of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Hanuman Dutt Shukla—already implemented for Sub-Inspector candidates—ought to be extended to Police Constable candidates who were alleged to have tampered with their answer sheets.
2. What course of action the Supreme Court should adopt in light of the pending writ petitions before the Allahabad High Court on the same question.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants’ Arguments

• The Supreme Court’s decision in Hanuman Dutt Shukla “crystallised” their rights, entitling them to the same relief already granted to Sub-Inspector candidates.
• Because the judgment has been implemented “in letter and spirit” for Sub-Inspectors, parity requires identical treatment for Police Constables.

State of Uttar Pradesh

The opinion does not detail specific arguments advanced by the respondent State.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court’s Reasoning and Analysis

After hearing the parties, the Supreme Court declined to examine the substantive claim that Police Constable candidates deserved the same relief granted in Hanuman Dutt Shukla. The pivotal consideration was that identical contentions are already before the Allahabad High Court in pending writ petitions. Recognising the High Court’s seisin of the matter, the Supreme Court found it inappropriate to adjudicate on merits at this stage. Instead, it opted to facilitate an expeditious resolution by the High Court, thereby avoiding parallel or conflicting determinations. The Court also preserved the right of similarly situated candidates who had not yet approached the High Court to do so, ensuring comprehensive adjudication in a single forum.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSED OF

The appeals were disposed of with two directions:

• The Allahabad High Court is requested to decide the pending writ petitions concerning the selection of Police Constables accused of answer-sheet tampering “expeditiously and preferably within three months” from production of the Supreme Court’s judgment.
• Candidates who have not yet invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction may file similar petitions, which the High Court should consider along with the existing batch.

Implication for the parties: the merits of their claims will now be determined by the High Court within a specified time-frame. No new substantive precedent was set by the Supreme Court; instead, it orchestrated procedural consolidation and expedition.