Supreme Court Directs Filling of Vacant Sub-Inspector Posts in Uttar Pradesh: Alok Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 27 November 2018
Citation: Not available in the provided text.
Judges: Kurian Joseph, J. and Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

What happens when a recruitment process is riddled with challenges, revisions, and unfilled vacancies? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the recruitment of Sub-Inspectors and Platoon Commanders in Uttar Pradesh. The court’s decision clarifies how vacancies should be filled, especially when dealing with candidates who were initially excluded due to technicalities. This judgment emphasizes the importance of merit and adherence to rules of reservation and preference, while also making a one-time exception to accommodate candidates from a long-pending selection process. The bench comprised of Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.

Case Background

The case revolves around a recruitment drive initiated by the State of Uttar Pradesh in 2011 to fill 4010 posts, including 3698 Sub-Inspectors (Civil Police) and 312 Platoon Commanders (Provincial Armed Constabulary or PAC). The selection process involved several stages: a Physical Standard Test, a Preliminary Written Examination, a Physical Efficiency Test, a Main Written Examination, and a Group Discussion. After the initial selection process, several challenges arose, including allegations of candidates using whitener or blades on their answer sheets, leading to multiple revisions of the final results. The High Court of Allahabad intervened multiple times, directing the authorities to exclude candidates who used whitener/blade. However, the Supreme Court later directed that these candidates should also be accommodated, creating additional vacancies. Further complications arose due to issues with the rounding of percentages and the application of horizontal reservation, leading to more revisions and legal challenges.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The recruitment process was governed by the Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2018. These rules outline a five-phase examination process for direct recruitment, including a Physical Standard Test, Preliminary Written Examination, Physical Efficiency Test, Main Written Examination, and Group Discussion. Rule 14 mandates that the appointing authority determine and communicate the number of vacancies, including reserved categories. Rule 6 provides for reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and other categories, as per the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993. Rule 15 details the direct recruitment procedure, specifying that candidates must secure a minimum of 50% marks in the Preliminary Written Examination (Rule 15(h)) and that a “Tentative Select List” is to be drawn up based on marks in the Main Written Examination and Group Discussion. Rule 15(j) states that vacancies arising from candidates being found unfit in medical tests or character verification are to be carried forward for further selection.

Specifically, Rule 15(h) of the Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2018 states:
“Tentative Select List is to be prepared in respect of each category of candidates in the light of reservation policy and is thereafter sent to Police Head Quarters for further action.”

Rule 15(j) of the Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2018 states:
“if candidates are found unfit in Medical Test or Character Verification, the vacancies are to be carried forward for further selection.”

Arguments

The appellants argued that the vacancies arising from candidates being found unfit should be offered to the next available candidates in order of merit, regardless of whether they had met the cut-off marks. They contended that the phrase “such vacancies shall be carried forward for further selection” in Rule 15(j) should be interpreted to mean that the vacancies must be filled by the next eligible candidates. The State of Uttar Pradesh, on the other hand, argued that Rule 15(j) should be interpreted in conjunction with Rule 15(h), which requires candidates to secure a minimum of 50% marks in the main written examination and that vacancies should be carried forward for a fresh selection process, not to accommodate candidates who did not meet the cut-off criteria. The state also contended that all candidates who had secured more than 50% marks were considered at the appropriate stages in the selection process and that no more candidates who had obtained 50% or more marks were now available.

The appellants further contended that the authorities had violated the principle laid down in Rule 15(d) of the Rules as a result of which ineligible candidates were declared successful and that the “rounding of percentage” adopted by the authorities was incorrect. The State contended that the selection was based on cut off marks differently applied for the candidates who have used whitener/blade etc.

The State also argued that the vacancies for dependents of freedom fighters should be carried forward as per the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993, which allows for carrying forward the unfilled vacancies for two years.

The Supreme Court, however, clarified that the vacancies of 809 candidates, 24 candidates and 189 candidates who used whitener/blade etc. should be treated as additional vacancies.

The arguments can be summarized as follows:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. What is the correct interpretation of the expression “such vacancies shall be carried forward for further selection” appearing in Rule 15(j) of the Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2018?
2. Whether the High Court was correct in negating the submission as regards construction of the expression “such vacancies shall be carried forward for further selection” appearing in Rule 15(j)?
3. Whether the decision of the High Court in Special Appeal No.416 of 2016 was correct?
4. What should be the approach in respect of vacant posts arising from candidates who discontinued training or did not qualify in medical examination/character verification?
5. What should be the approach in respect of unfilled posts as a result of non-availability of candidates in the category of dependents of freedom fighters?
6. Whether the benefit of any order or direction should be confined to those who are/were before the Court or the High Court alone?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Hanuman Dutt Shukla vs. State of UP: The Supreme Court reiterated its earlier decision that the revised final list should not be disturbed, but candidates excluded for using whitener/blade should be accommodated additionally.
• Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2018: The Court interpreted and applied the rules to the facts of the case, specifically Rules 14, 6, 15(h), and 15(j).
• Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993: The Court considered the provisions of the Act regarding the carrying forward of unfilled vacancies but made a one-time exception.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors. The Court acknowledged the multiple interventions and revisions in the selection process, including the issue of candidates using whitener/blade, the rounding of percentages, and the application of horizontal reservation. The Court also considered the large number of vacancies that remained unfilled and the fact that the selection process had been ongoing since 2011. The Court emphasized the importance of merit, reservation, and preference in the selection process. The Court also considered the fact that more than 8000 posts were available in the succeeding selections. The Court made a one-time exception to accommodate the candidates from the long-pending selection process while also adhering to the rules of reservation and preference. The court also considered the fact that candidates who used whitener/blade etc. were also required to be accommodated and that the vacancies of such candidates should be treated as additional vacancies.

The sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court is as follows:

The ratio of fact to law is as follows:

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered alternative interpretations of Rule 15(j), particularly the argument that vacancies should be offered to the next available candidates regardless of the cut-off marks. However, the court rejected this interpretation, stating that it would be contrary to the rules and the principle of merit. The court emphasized that the selection process should adhere to merit, reservation, and preference and that the benefit should not be confined to those who approached the Court.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The need to resolve the long-pending issue of the 2011 recruitment process.
• The large number of vacancies that remained unfilled.
• The multiple interventions and revisions in the selection process.
• The importance of merit, reservation, and preference in the selection process.
• The fact that more than 8000 posts were available in the succeeding selections.
• The need to accommodate the candidates who were excluded for using whitener/blade etc.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

“In the present case, there is a clear statutory embargo which provides that such vacancies shall be carried forward for further selection which is specifically in the context of candidates being found unfit in the medical test or being invalidated as a result of the character verification.”

“The principle that the vacancies which are available should be filled up is subject to statutory rules laying down the method and process of selection.”

“We, therefore, direct that these 226 posts should also be made available for the present selection.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• The State of Uttar Pradesh was directed to fill 833 additional posts in the present selection, in addition to any other directions already issued.
• The selection process must adhere to the principles of merit, reservation, and preference.
• Vacancies arising from candidates discontinuing training or failing medical/character verification should be filled in the same selection process as a one-time exception.
• Unfilled posts for dependents of freedom fighters should also be made available for the present selection as a one-time exception.
• The benefit of the court’s directions should not be confined to those who approached the court but should be extended to all eligible candidates based on merit.

This judgment has significant implications for future recruitment processes in Uttar Pradesh. It clarifies the interpretation of Rule 15(j) and emphasizes the importance of merit, reservation, and preference in public employment. The one-time exception made by the court also highlights the need for flexibility in dealing with long-pending and complex recruitment issues.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions to the State of Uttar Pradesh:

• 607 posts lying vacant due to candidates discontinuing training or failing medical/character verification should be offered in the present selection.
• 226 unfilled posts for dependents of freedom fighters should also be made available for the present selection.
• The State Government and its authorities are directed to make available 833 posts (607+226) for the present selection strictly in order of merit subject to the fulfillment of the criteria that the candidates had obtained 50% or more in the main written examination, in keeping with principles of reservation and preference.
• The direction to fill-up the above 833 posts is in addition to any other directions already issued.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while the rules for carrying forward vacancies for further selection should generally be followed, the court may make exceptions in peculiar circumstances to ensure that the selection process is fair and that the vacancies are filled in a timely manner. The court also emphasized that merit, reservation, and preference should be the guiding principles in any selection process. This judgment does not change the previous positions of law, but it clarifies the interpretation of Rule 15(j) and provides a framework for dealing with similar issues in the future.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Alok Kumar Singh & Others vs. State of U.P. & Others provides clarity on the interpretation of recruitment rules and the filling of vacancies in public employment. The court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to fill 833 additional posts in the present selection, in addition to any other directions already issued, emphasizing the importance of merit, reservation, and preference. The judgment also highlights the need for flexibility in dealing with long-pending and complex recruitment issues. This decision ensures that candidates who were initially excluded due to technicalities are given a fair chance while also adhering to the principles of merit and reservation.