Pramod Kumar Singh And 9 Others v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2019:AHC:29166

1

Reserved on 11.02.2019 Delivered on 20.02.2019 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18442 of 2018

Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Singh And 9 Others

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Seemant Singh,Pankaj Kumar,Pawan Kumar,Sr. Advocate, Ashok Khare,

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18130 of 2018

Petitioner :- Gopal Sharma

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Seemant Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18777 of 2018

Petitioner :- Sheelam Devi And 16 Others

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar,G.K. Singh, Sr. Advocate,Pavan Kumar

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

1

2

With

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18807 of 2018

Petitioner :- Kuldeep Singh And 3 Others

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Seemant Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19003 of 2018

Petitioner :- Ankit Kumar And Another

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Shahid Ali Siddiqui

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19141 of 2018

Petitioner :- Pooja And 8 Others

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another

Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare, Sr.Advocate

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19299 of 2018

Petitioner :- Sachin Kumar And Another

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar,Pavan Kumar

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

3

With

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20256 of 2018

Petitioner :- Furkana Begum And 6 Others

Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Seemant Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20549 of 2018

Petitioner :- Parul

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another

Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20655 of 2018

Petitioner :- Yashwant Singh And 9 Others

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Qazi Vakil Ahmad

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21189 of 2018

Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar And Another

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Pratima Singh,Nagendra Krishna

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21326 of 2018

Petitioner :- Ankita Singh

4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21426 of 2018

Petitioner :- Laxmi Tyagi

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar,Pavan Kumar

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 22227 of 2018

Petitioner :- Pratibha And Another

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another

Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishnu Pandey,Prashant Shukla

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 22331 of 2018

Petitioner :- Aakash Raghav And 2 Others

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Qazi Vakil Ahmad

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 23243 of 2018

Petitioner :- Sachin Tiwari And 5 Others

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Tiwari,Ravindra Prakash Srivastava

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

5

With

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 23560 of 2018

Petitioner :- Satyaveer Singh Gaur And Another

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Anmol Tiwari

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 24032 of 2018

Petitioner :- Irfan Siddiqui And 13 Others

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Qazi Vakil Ahmad

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 24579 of 2018

Petitioner :- Sunil Yadav And 20 Others

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Tiwari,Ravindra Prakash Srivastava

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 517 of 2019

Petitioner :- Irfan Ali And Another

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Shreya Gupta

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1332 of 2019

Petitioner :- Prashant Kumar Pandey And 15 Others

6

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Tiwari,Ravindra Prakash Srivastava

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Yashwant Varma, J.

This litigation has had a chequered history as a consequence of which the recruitment exercise which was initiated by the respondents as far back as in 2015 for selection of Constables (Civil Police), Constables (PAC) and Firemen has not seen culmination till date. The original advertisement had sought to fill 41610 vacancies amongst the three categories of posts aforementioned of which 35500 were for Constable (Civil Police), 4033 posts stood earmarked for Constable (PAC) and 2077 for the post of Firemen. The results of the selection process were declared on 16 July 2015 and a final select list of 38315 candidates was drawn by the respondents. 2312 posts identified to be filled up by candidates claiming the benefit of horizontal reservation were carried forward. The recruitment process envisaged reservation in favour of SC, ST and OBC candidates apart from providing the facility of horizontal reservation in favour of dependents of freedom fighters, ex-service man and women. Before adverting to the series of litigation which ensued

7

before this Court and also travelled at different stages to the Supreme Court, it would be relevant to note the reliefs as claimed in Pramod Kumar Singh & others Vs. The State of U.P. and others¹. The principal reliefs read thus:

a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for the record of the case and to quash the impugned notification dated 13.08.2018 issued by the Additional Secretary (Recruitment)/Examination Controller), U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotional Board, Lucknow, by which the candidates belonging to reserved categories have also been called upon for document verification and medical examination against the vacancies of horizontal reservation to be filled up by the candidates belonging to general category.

b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent concerned to disclose as to how many vacancies are available after applying horizontal reservation as per law decided in the case of

Ashish Kumar Pandey and others Vs. State of U.P. And others and as to how many vacancies provided to candidates of general category in carry forward vacancies as per law decided in the case of Upendra and others Vs State of U.P. and others.

(c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to fill up 471 vacancies of Constables PAC and 645 vacancies of Fireman of general category.

(d) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent concerned to consider the claim of the petitioners in respect of their selection in selection of Constables and Other Equivalent Posts Direct Recruitment -2013"

Insofar as relief b) is concerned, it is evident that no prayer as such is sought and the relief as formulated is principally inquisitorial. In the hearing of this batch of writ petitions, arguments were also advanced by Ms. Shreya Gupta on

8

the writ petition preferred by Irfan Ali and others²wherein the following reliefs were claimed:

"(i) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of

certiorari quashing the Public notice dated 24.12.2018 issued by Additional Secretary (Recruitment) ,Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board (Annexure No.1)

(ii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of

mandamus directing to the respondent to publish the final result and merit list of 'Uttar Pradesh Police Constable And Other Equivalent Post Direct Recruitment 2013' within a specified time period and conclude the entire selection procedure and appoint the petitioners with effect from the date of appointment of their immediate seniors."

Diametrically opposed to what is claimed in Pramod Kumar Singh arguments were also addressed on the writ petitions of Parul³and Pooja⁴in which the relief is framed in the following terms:

"I. a writ ,order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the notification dated 13.08.2018 issued by UP Police Recruitment & Promotion Board ,Lucknow

(Annexure -5 with this writ petition ) in so far as it limits consideration of candidate belonging to unreserved category alone against the post earmarked for women under the unreserved category.

II. a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in the process of document verification and medical examination being held in pursuance to the notification dated 13.08.2018 issued by UP Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow (Annexure- 5 to this writ petition)."

The connected writ petitions apart from addressing the

9

issues which were canvassed in Pramod Kumar Singh have also raised aspects dealing with the individual merits of candidates and petitioners therein have also assailed their non inclusion in the results declared by the respondents. However, principal submissions were advanced only with regard to the issues raised in Pramod Kumar Singh by all learned counsels and consequently this Court does not propose to deal with the facts of the individual candidates who shall in any case have a right to assail the final result which is yet to be declared by the respondents.

When Pramod Kumar Singh was initially entertained by this Court, a learned Judge on 12 September 2018 passed a detailed order which reads thus:

"Pursuant to the previous orders passed, Shri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri V.B. Yadav, learned standing counsel has appeared for the respondents and instructions, signed by the Deputy Secretary of the Board, have been produced. Copy of such instructions have been handed over to the counsel for the petitioners. The matter has been heard at some length and the facts, disclosed in the instructions, have been examined. Having examined all such materials, this Court finds that the facts need to be further clarified and the respondents would have to explain as to how they proceed to implement the provisions of horizontal reservation in light of previous adjudications made by this Court?

In order to resolve the issue, it would be appropriate that the Secretary of the Board files his personal affidavit clearly specifying the vacancy position as per the advertisement, the position that stands as on date with regard to selections, and

10

how the respondents propose to fill up the vacancies as per the earlier adjudications made by this Court? The respondents would further explain as to whether the vacancies, which have already been filled in teeth of quota specified, have been taken note of in the exercise or not? It shall also be clarified as to whether persons, who have illegally been appointed and such vacancies were liable to be adjusted, are still continuing or not and how the State proposes to deal with such persons keeping in view the directions issued earlier?

Let this matter appear in the additional cause list on

03.10.2018.

In view of the statement made on behalf of the respondents, that no appointments are proposed to be made till the next date fixed in the matter, there is no requirement of considering petitioners' interim application as on date."

As is evident from the above order, awaiting a response from the Secretary of the Board, the Court took on record a statement made on behalf of the respondents that no appointments are proposed to be made till the next date fixed. This undertaking on behalf of the respondents has been continued by the subsequent orders passed in the writ petition. The Secretary of the Board has thereafter filed his personal affidavit on 12 December 2018 detailing the various steps which the respondents propose to take in aid of a final declaration of the results.

Before dealing with the submissions which have been addressed, it would be apposite to briefly notice the decisions rendered by this Court as well as the Supreme Court on the litigation which ensued pursuant to the declaration of results by

11

the respondents on 16 July 2015. As was noticed above, the final result saw the declaration of a select list comprising of 38315 candidates. Many candidates came to be excluded thereafter from the select list since they had used a whitener on the OMR sheets. This decision of the respondents to exclude candidates who had used whitener was assailed before this Court. Although the decision to exclude such candidates was upheld by this Court, the matter travelled to the Supreme Court and formed subject matter of consideration in Hanuman Dutt Shukla and others⁵which was ultimately disposed of on 19 January 2016. It is pertinent to note that along with Hanuman Dutt Shukla, the Supreme Court also dealt with certain connected Civil Appeals which related to the post of Sub Inspectors. Insofar as the case of Sub Inspectors was concerned, the Supreme Court while disposing of the Civil Appeals held as follows:

" On 8.12.2015 learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellants and the learned Advocate General on behalf of the State of U.P. were heard on merits. After hearing them for some time on merits, the matters were adjourned to be listed on 12.01.2016 in view of the submission made by the learned Advocate General in answer to our query with regard to the vacancy position in respect of the Sub-Inspectors and Constables in the State of U.P. He took time to find out the correct position and also to come with certain concrete proposal to resolve the conflicting interests of the candidates and the writ petitioners before the

12

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, who have participated in the Selection process. In pursuant to the said observations of this Court, learned Advocate General, representing the respondent - State of U.P., appeared before this Court and furnished the suggestions in writing to resolve the conflicting interests between the parties. Insofar as the merit list of candidates participated in the selection process for the post of Sub-Inspectors are concerned, out of the list of 810 candidates, it is stated by the learned Advocate General, on instructions received from the Principal Secretary (Home), that 670 candidates can be taken on the post of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police), remaining 140 candidates can be appointed on the post of Platoon Cadre (PAC), which post also is equivalent to the post of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police). Further, while giving appointment in the above manner from out of the select list, learned Advocate General has stated that there will be no right of seniority in the candidates already in the original seniority list and a separate/fresh merit list of 810 candidates will be prepared on the basis of marks obtained by them and they will be kept below the candidates in the original seniority list. Appointments out of such select list that would be drawn on the basis of the marks secured by each one of the candidate to the post of Civil Police/PAC in terms of the fresh merit list of 810 candidates will be drawn purely on the basis of merit and preference indicated by the applicants in their application forms at the time of submission. The State will select only 810 candidates, as per the list, who were originally in the merit list, but were not selected due to use of whitener/blade in the OMR sheets. No other candidate shall have any claim over such appointment. Further, the candidates so appointed to the post of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) and on the post of Platoon Cadre (PAC) will be sent for training only after completion of training of already selected candidates as currently there is no vacancy in training centres to impart training to the newly appointed candidates to the aforesaid posts. The appointment shall be done as an exceptional and one-time measure, this will not be treated as a precedent for any other case."

Dealing with the case of Constables, the following

13

directions were ultimately framed:

" As regards the selection of Constables, learned Advocate General stated that the State can accommodate only those candidates who could have been selected, had they not been excluded from the final result for having used whitener/blade in OMR sheets. For this purpose, Board will prepare Notional Result as per notified vacancies (41, 610), after including all candidates who had used whitener/blad. Thereafter, separate list of all such candidates will be prepared who have found place in notional result, but could not find place in the result declared on 16.07.2015. After preparation of separate list of all such candidates, State will take steps to accommodate them, out of which 2500 candidates can be appointed as Constables in PAC, 1000 candidates can be appointed as Constables in Fire Service and rest of the candidates can be appointed in Civil Police. A Separate list will be prepared on the basis of marks obtained by them and such candidates will be kept below the already selected candidates. State will appoint only those candidates who are in the fresh Notional Result to be prepared by the Board, who could not be selected due to use of whitener/blade. None other will have any claim to appointment. All new candidates will be sent for training after completion of training of already selected candidates, as there is no vacancy in training centres at present. Appointments will be done as an exceptional and one-time measure. This will not be treated as a precedent for any other case.

It is submitted by Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel and other learned senior counsel/learned counsel appearing for the parties that as per the Recruitment Rules framed by the State Government to appoint the eligible candidates to the posts, referred to supra, there is no prohibition to disentitle a candidate from evaluating the answer sheets, who used whitener or blade in the relevant blocks in the OMR sheet (answer sheet). The said advisory note given by the Selection Board cannot be treated as a Rule to declare such candidates who have used whitener or blade in the relevant blocks in the OMR/answer sheet as ineligible for evaluating their answer sheets. This statement is in conformity with the Recruitment Rules and it would further support the stand taken by the learned Advocate General, representing the respondent-State of U.P. in making submission on the basis of written suggestions. The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms on the basis of the statement made by the learned Advocate General on the instructions received from the Principal Secretary

14

(Home) and the legal submissions referred to supra."

Assailing the application of horizontal reservation in the case of the recruitment undertaken for Sub Inspectors, this Court was moved by way of a writ petition preferred by Ashish Kumar Pandey and 24 others⁶. The challenge in this writ petition was to the action of the respondents accommodating and adjusting all candidates falling in the special category of Women, Ex- Service Men and Dependents of Freedom Fighters in the Open Category. This decision was ultimately quashed by a learned Judge and directions were issued for the adjustment of the special category candidates referred to above in their respective social categories namely, OBC, SC and ST. Further consequential directions were issued for the adjustments to be made in respect of the special category candidates belonging to the open category in that category itself and the adjustments to be made from the bottom of the list of each category by replacing an equal number of male candidates. The respondents were consequently directed to redraw the final result. Since a similar skewed exercise of adjustment of special category candidates was undertaken by the respondents with respect to the recruitment of Constables, this was also challenged

15

before this Court by Manoj Kumar and another⁷. Following the decision rendered in Ashish Kumar Pandey, a learned Judge directed the respondents to redraw the result in respect of Constables and that the claim of the petitioners therein be decided accordingly. The third litigation which travelled before this Court was with respect to the 2312 posts falling in the special reservation category being carried forward since they had remained unfilled. A challenge was also laid to Section 3(5) of the U.P. Public Services (Reservation For Physically Handicapped, Dependents Of Freedom Fighters And Ex- Servicemen) Act, 1993⁸. Sub Section (5) of Section 3 envisaged the carry forward of posts earmarked for horizontal reservation to a future selection. A Division Bench of the Court upheld the challenge raised to this action in Upendra and 29 others⁹. Sub- section (5) of Section 3 of the 1993 Act was declared null and void and a further direction was issued to the Board to declare the result and fill up the post of Constables carried forward under the aforementioned provision.

After the conclusion of the litigations noticed above, the respondents issued a notice dated 10 April 2018 declaring cut off

16

marks for the respective categories in accordance with the judgments and orders aforementioned. The notice referred to above was modified on 13 April 2018 with the respondents taking a decision to restrict the benefits of the judgments referred to above only to the petitioners who had approached this Court. The modified notices dated 13 April 2018 was assailed in Ankit Kumar and two others Vs. State of U.P. And others¹⁰In that writ petition a statement was made on behalf of the State respondents that the notice issued on 13 April 2018 had been modified by a subsequent notice dated 17 April 2018. Consequently the original notice dated 10 April 2018 stood restored. A further statement was made before the Court that all applicants, irrespective of whether they were petitioners before this Court or not, who had applied and had obtained marks above the cut off in their respective categories would be called for document verification and medical examination so as to conclude the recruitment exercise.

From the disclosures which have been made in the personal affidavit of the Secretary, the Court notes that the initial select list which was published on 16 July 2015 contained the names of 38315 candidates across respective categories and

17

posts. It is further disclosed that 4429 posts were liable to be set apart since they would be governed by the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Hanuman Dutt Shukla. As is evident from the final order passed in Hanuman Dutta Shukla, the Supreme Court disposed of the Civil Appeals taking on record the statement of the learned Advocate General that 810 Sub Inspectors whose names stood included initially in the select list and were later removed therefrom on the ground of having used a whitener on their OMR Sheets would be re-inducted in the selection exercise and a fresh merit list prepared for those 810 candidates on the basis of merit. A further statement was made for the adjustment of these 810 candidates against the posts of Sub Inspectors Civil Police and Platoon Cadre PAC. A similar statement was made in respect of Constables and it was stated before the Supreme Court that 4429 candidates who had been selected initially and thereafter removed for having used a whitener would be considered afresh and a separate list of such candidates would be prepared by drawing up a notional results as per the originally notified vacancies. The statement in essence was for a notional result being prepared in respect of 41610 vacancies after including all candidates who had used a whitener and blade. The affidavit then proceeds to state that the State

18

respondents had declared a final select list of only 38315 candidates since this was the total number of posts which they desired to fill up. It is further stated that insofar as 4429 posts are concerned, they would not form part of the pool of vacancies liable to be considered for the purposes of applying the benefits of horizontal reservation since they were governed solely by the order of the Supreme Court. The principles of horizontal reservation have consequently been restricted to 38315 vacancies only. It is further stated that in case 4429 posts are added to the initially advertised posts (41610), the total number of posts would come to 42744 thus exceeding the total number of vacancies advertised. It is in that backdrop that the benefits of horizontal reservation have been restricted to 38315 posts only. Insofar as the carried forward vacancies numbering 2312 are concerned and which formed subject matter of challenge in

Upendra and 29 others, the respondents take the position that they be treated as part and parcel of the entire pool of 42744 vacancies. Along with affidavit and at Annexure-3, the respondents have also appended a detailed note explaining the procedure that they now propose to follow in order to conclude the recruitment exercise. The respondents in this note have given

19

a detailed break up of the distribution of 38315 posts amongst the Open, SC, ST and OBC categories. Further details have been disclosed enumerating the compartmentalised implementation of the horizontal reservation policy. The chart as forming part of that note reads thus:

Total 38315 766 1915 1851 6721 Important: The vertical and horizontal Reservation is admissible to only those candidates who are domicile of U.P.

The procedure as set forth for completion of the

recruitment exercise is then described in the following terms:

"Step 3.1 From List -1 select 19158 Candidates in open category in order of their merit (Total Marks). This list may contain candidates from any state or any reserved categories (OBC/SC/ST) also. Let us call this list-as List 1-A. Step 3.2 Now select 10345 candidates of OBC Category from the candidates left after Step 3.1 from the List-1. This will include only OBC candidates with domicile of UP. Let us call this list as List-1-B.

20

Step 3.3 Now select 8046 candidates of SC Category from the candidates left after Step-3.1 from the List-1. This will include only SC candidates with domicile of UP. Let us call this list-as

List 1-C. Step 3.4 Now select 766 candidates of ST Category from the candidates left after Step-3.1 from the List-1. This will include only ST candidates with domicile of UP. Let us call this list-as

List 1-D. Step-3.5 If number of candidates in List-1-C is less than the required number 8046 for SC Candidates then shortage will be filled from ST candidates remaining after step-3.4 if available. If required quota of SC remains unfilled, then number of shortage posts should be shown separately. Similarly if number of candidates in list 1-D are less than the required number i.e. 766 for ST Candidates then shortage will be filled from SC candidates remaining after Step-3.3, if available. If required quota of ST still remains unfilled then number of shortage post should be shown separately.

Step-3.6 In this way four list of candidates will be prepared as follows:-

List-1-A(OC) List-1-B(OBC) List-1-C(SC) List-1D(ST) 19158 (Will 10345 (only 8046 (Only SC, 766(only ST, include GEN, OBC, domicile of domicile of U.P.) domicile of U P) OBC, ST of U.P.)

any state)

Step-4 Prepare a separate list of remaining candidates from

List-1 who are not included in List-1-A, 1-B, 1-C and 1-D. Let us call this list as List 2.

Step-4.1 Now count the number of DFF candidates belonging to General Category (having domicile of UP) from the list-1-A. The candidates should not be of OBC/SC/ST category. If number of candidates is 383 or more, then nothing needs to be done, otherwise select the shortfall of candidates of General needs to be done, otherwise select the shortfall of candidates of General Category belonging to DFF on merit from the List-2 (only candidates not belonging to OBC, SC & ST category) and adjust/insert them in after removing equal number of candidates from the bottom of List 1-A except General Category DFF, Ex- serviceman, Female and Home guard candidates (any candidate who is eligible for horizontal reservation)."

To complete the narration of facts, it may be additionally noted that in Irfan Ali and others the challenge is laid to a

21

public notice dated 24 December 2018. This notice alludes to the writ petition of Pramod Kumar Singh and proceeds to state that the High Court has ordered that no further steps for recruitment be carried out. Suffice it to state that the contents of the public notice are clearly objectionable and incorrect since the High Court had passed no such order in Pramod Kumar Singh. In fact it was the respondents who made a statement before this Court that they would not proceed to make any appointments. Reverting to the reliefs as framed in Pramod Kumar Singh, the Court notes that the fundamental prayer made in that petition is for reserved category candidates being not called for document verification and medical examination against vacancies of horizontal reservation to be filled by candidates belonging to the general category. Relevant it is to note that none of the petitioner in that petition claim the benefits of horizontal reservation. However since the petition has already been entertained and a detailed response obtained from the respondents, the Court does not deem it expedient to non suit the petitioners on this score. The primary anxiety of the Court even otherwise is to render a quietus to the entire controversy and for a speedy declaration of results so that the recruitment

22

exercise which commenced in 2013 comes to an end. The Court also bears in mind the tenor of the orders passed by the Supreme Court which also seem to suggest and embody its intent to see an end to the litigation which bogged down the recruitment process from its inception and for finality being accorded to the same.

Picking up the principal objection addressed on behalf of the petitioners, Sri H.N. Singh learned senior counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the charts appended to the personal affidavit of the Secretary and has demonstrated from the details disclosed therein that 721 vacancies of Constables [Civil Police], 473 in the category of Constable PAC and 712 in the category of Firemen thus totaling 1906 vacancies in all had remained unfilled as per the originally declared result. From Annexure 2 to that affidavit it was further contended that undisputedly 924 posts falling under the horizontal reservation quota stood earmarked for candidates in the open category. Sri Singh contended that against these 924 posts only candidates belonging to the open category could be invited. It is his submission that no candidates belonging to either the SC/ST/OBC categories could be permitted to apply for or be

23

considered for these posts. This submission is advanced by Sri Singh since according to him the recruitment from its inception had conceived the horizontal reservation being implemented in compartments comprising of the Open/SC/ST and OBC category. It was further contended that the impugned notification dated 13 August 2018 did not disclose cut off marks in favour of dependants of freedom fighters [DFF], ex- servicemen and women against their respective reservation categories. It was submitted that it is in the aforesaid backdrop that the principal relief has been framed in Pramod Kumar Singh.

On being confronted with this contention, Sri Manish Goyal the learned AAG, categorically stated that the State has always comprehended the horizontal reservation in the recruitment exercise to be compartmentalized. It was further stated that the State respondents are bound and shall ensure the implementation of horizontal reservation strictly in accordance with the principles laid down in Ashish Kumar Pandey. To clarify the controversy Sri Goyal stated that against the 924 posts for horizontal reservation earmarked for the open category no candidate belonging to the SC/ST/OBC category would be

24

invited or be considered. The learned AAG has also referred to the procedure detailed in Steps 4.1 to 4.6 of the Note for preparing the revised select list. The learned AAG further stated that an identical procedure would be followed for implementing horizontal reservation earmarked and compartmentalized under the SC/ST/OBC categories.

The procedure envisaged in Steps 4.1 to 4.6 was neither assailed nor was it demonstrated to be contrary to the principles enunciated in Ashish Kumar Pandey. In light of the stand taken by the State and as expressed and explained by Sri Goel it is evident that relief (a) in Pramod Kumar Singh stands satisfied and all apprehensions expressed by the petitioners laid to rest. The additional submission of Sri Khare the learned senior counsel on the petition preferred by Pramod Kumar Singh was that the 4429 vacancies which formed the subject matter of

Hanuman Dutt Shukla should be treated as separate and in addition to those which are now sought to be filled by the State respondents.

Undisputedly, the 4429 candidates were initially included in the select list where after they were removed therefrom on the ground of having used whitener/blade on their OMR sheets.

25

They were, therefore, evidently an integral part of the preliminary result that was declared by the respondents. Their selection was against vacancies which were part of the original advertisements. The order of the Supreme Court in Hanuman Prasad Gupta, essentially takes on record the statement of the learned Advocate General to redraw and publish a notional result all over again including those who had been excluded on the ground of having used whitener/blade. This conclusion is additionally fortified by the recordal of the statement of the learned Advocate General in the following terms in that order-

"…learned Advocate General stated that the State can accommodate only those candidates who could have been selected, had they not been excluded from the final result for having used whitener/blade in OMR sheets." These candidates consequently cannot be recognised as being candidates vying for vacancies outside or in addition to those which had been originally advertised. The order in Hanuman Prasad Gupta also mandates the drawing up of a notional result bearing in mind the notified vacancies. This is evident when the Court bears in mind that the Supreme Court has unambiguously provided that "For this purpose, the Board will prepare Notional Result as per notified vacancies (41,610)....." The submission therefore that these 4429

26

vacancies be recognised as being in addition to those originally advertised cannot possibly be countenanced and does not merit acceptance. As has been rightly contended by the State, in case this submission were accepted it would result in an increase of the number of vacancies beyond that which were initially advertised. It is in that backdrop that the State has now proposed to redraw the select list including these 4429 vacancies and restrict the same to those candidates alone who had been removed from the final result on the ground of use of whitener/blade. These 4429 vacancies are to be filled strictly in accordance with the order of the Supreme Court in Hanuman Prasad Gupta.

Coming to the prayers made in Parul and Pooja, suffice it to note that the recruitment exercise right from its inception envisaged horizontal reservation to be compartmentalized. This is evident from the submissions addressed before the Court even in Ashish Kumar Singh. These petitioners never questioned the advertisement or the terms encompassed therein at any stage prior to the institution of the present writ petitions on this score. In the considered view of this Court, it would be clearly impermissible for the petitioners here being permitted now to

27

raise such a plea. The directions issued in Ashish Kumar Pandey

also proceed on the basis that the horizontal reservation was compartmentalized. The various steps which this decision commands the respondents to undertake are for the implementation of horizontal reservation in compartments. The petitioners here, in essence, seek to reopen and attempt a review of the principles elucidated and settled by Ashish Kumar Pandey. It is also relevant to note that this decision has attained finality. Thus, the Court finds itself unable to countenance, let alone grant the reliefs as claimed in these two writ petitions. As has been noticed in the introductory parts of this order, the recruitment exercise initiated as far back as 2013 has continually been thwarted by legal challenges. The candidates participating in the recruitment exercise have been compelled to approach Court on more than one occasion aggrieved by the action of the respondents. These challenges have been admitted and accepted by the Court as reflected in the various judgments rendered in connection with the said recruitment exercise. It would wholly be destructive of public interest to accept the contentions advanced on Pooja and Parul.

The Court lastly notes that various disputed and contentious

28

issues were raised and adverted to in a counter affidavit filed by the petitioners in Pramod Kumar Singh in response to the personal affidavit of the Secretary. However learned senior counsel was unable to establish how any enquiry into these aspects would be either compatible or fall within the ambit of the reliefs as framed in the writ petition. As has been noticed in the introductory part of this order, relief (b) in Pramod Kumar Singh only seeks the disclosure of information. No substantial or consequential relief is claimed. More fundamentally, learned senior counsel despite repeated queries and opportunities was unable to either formulate any challenge or establish a legal infirmity in respect of the Note for preparing a revised select list appended to the affidavit of the Secretary.

This batch of writ petitions in one sense was also clearly premature since final results had not even been declared when they were entertained. The petitioners apprehended their exclusion. However this Court finds that no legal impediment now appears to exist or survive restraining the State from proceeding to finalise the selection process.

These writ petitions are therefore disposed of with a direction to the State respondents to proceed forward with expedition and conclude the selection process strictly in

29

accordance with the procedure detailed in the Note filed along with the personal affidavit of the Secretary. This Court while passing this order has not considered the individual grievances or objections of the petitioners and has only considered the principal submissions noticed above. In view thereof, all individual claims as raised by the petitioners may be raised after declaration of final results and all contentions on merits in that respect are kept open.

Order Date:-20.2.2019 LA/-