Supreme Court Upholds State’s Selection Process in Police Constable Recruitment: Pramod Kumar Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021)

Date of the Judgment: March 16, 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 145

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., S. Ravindra Bhat, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Can a state government adjust candidates from reserved categories to the open category during a recruitment process? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the recruitment of police constables in Uttar Pradesh. The court examined whether the state’s method of adjusting candidates who were initially selected in reserved categories to the open category was valid. This judgment clarifies the principles of merit and reservation in government recruitment processes. The bench was composed of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, and Hrishikesh Roy, with the judgment authored by Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.

Case Background

In 2013, the Uttar Pradesh government initiated a recruitment process to fill 41,610 posts for Police Constables across the U.P. Civil Police, Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC), and Fireman departments. The petitioners, who were general category candidates, participated in this process. The results declared on July 16, 2015, showed that 38,315 candidates had qualified, leaving some vacancies unfilled due to the unavailability of suitable candidates.

During this period, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in the case of Saket Kumar and ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors., dealt with a similar selection process for Sub-Inspectors. The High Court disqualified candidates who had used blades or whiteners on their answer papers. However, the Supreme Court, in Hanuman Dutt Shukla and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Others, overturned this decision, stating that such candidates should not have been disqualified. The Supreme Court directed that these candidates be given a notional selection without disturbing the already selected candidates. This principle was also applied to the police constable recruitment.

Further, the High Court decisions in Ashish Kumar Pandey and 24 others vs. State of U.P and 29 others and Upendra and others vs. State of U.P. and others, concerning horizontal reservation, led to additional vacancies. By July 24, 2019, the Supreme Court directed the state to fill 2,312 vacancies and 982 additional vacancies, totaling 3,295 posts, while adhering to reservation principles and merit. The results of this process were declared on November 11, 2019.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in Saket Kumar and ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors., had initially disqualified candidates who used blades or whiteners in their answer papers. This decision was later overturned by the Supreme Court in Hanuman Dutt Shukla and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Others, which directed a notional selection for those candidates. The High Court decisions in Ashish Kumar Pandey and 24 others vs. State of U.P and 29 others and Upendra and others vs. State of U.P. and others, regarding horizontal reservation, also impacted the number of vacancies. The Supreme Court, in its order dated July 24, 2019, directed the state to fill 2,312 vacancies and 982 additional vacancies, which led to the declaration of results on November 11, 2019.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily concerns the interpretation and application of the principles of merit and reservation in government recruitment processes. The Supreme Court considered its previous directions in Ashish Kumar Yadav and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., which mandated that the State Government and its functionaries were obliged to go strictly in order of merit and apply the principle of reservation. The Court also considered the implications of its earlier decisions in Hanuman Dutt Shukla and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Others, which directed a notional selection for candidates who had used blades or whiteners on their answer papers.

The relevant legal provisions include:

• Article 32 of the Constitution of India, under which the writ petition was filed.
• The principles of merit and reservation as applied in government recruitments.

Arguments

Petitioners’ Arguments:

• The petitioners argued that 958 seats were wrongly shifted from reserved categories to the open category. They contended that candidates initially selected in reserved categories were moved to the open category without actually changing their cadre, thus prejudicing the chances of open category candidates.
• The petitioners asserted that these 958 seats should have been made available to the open category, which would have allowed them to be selected.
• The petitioners also pointed out that out of 2016 seats meant for male general category candidates in the Constable PAC post, only 1650 were filled, and out of 1038 seats meant for male general category candidates in the Constable Fireman post, only 446 were filled.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the selection process was conducted as per the directions of the Supreme Court in Ashish Kumar Yadav and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., which required them to follow merit and reservation principles.
• The State explained that List-I of selected candidates included those who were initially selected in reserved categories (OBC/SC/ST) but were moved to the open category based on their merit.
• The State contended that the adjustment was rightly done as the 3295 posts were part of the same selection process initiated in 2013.

Intervenors’ Arguments:

• The intervenors supported the State’s position, arguing that the process followed was in accordance with the law and previous court orders.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the State’s action of shifting candidates who were initially selected against posts meant for reserved categories to the open category in the list published on 11.11.2019 was valid.

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?

✓ The Supreme Court in Hanuman Dutt Shukla and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Others [2018] 16 SCC 447* had overruled the decision of the High Court in Saket Kumar and ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. and directed notional selection for candidates who had used blades or whiteners. The Court noted that the state had rightly applied the principles laid down in this case.

✓ The Supreme Court noted that the directions issued in Ashish Kumar Yadav and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. mandated the State to follow merit and reservation principles, which the State had complied with.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the State had followed the principles of merit and reservation as directed by the Supreme Court in Ashish Kumar Yadav and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. The Court emphasized that the adjustment of candidates from reserved categories to the open category was a part of the same selection process initiated in 2013 and was based on the merit of the candidates. The Court also considered that the State had correctly identified candidates who were eligible to be considered in the open category. The Court found no merit in the petitioners’ argument that the seats should have been exclusively reserved for open category candidates, as the State’s approach was consistent with the principles of merit and reservation.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal principles of merit and reservation and the directions issued by the Supreme Court in previous cases. While the factual aspects of the case were considered, the legal framework and the adherence to the principles were given more weight.

The Supreme Court found no merit in the petitioners’ arguments and upheld the State’s actions, stating, “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.” The Court further noted, “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.” The Court also observed, “It is not the grievance of the petitioners that any candidate who had secured marks lesser than the petitioners, has been selected.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court upheld the State’s action of adjusting candidates from reserved categories to the open category based on merit.
• The judgment reinforces that government recruitment processes must adhere to the principles of merit and reservation.
• The decision clarifies that adjustments made within the same selection process are valid if they follow merit and reservation principles.
• This case highlights the importance of following court directions in recruitment processes.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the State’s actions.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the State’s action of adjusting candidates from reserved categories to the open category, based on merit and within the same selection process, is valid. This judgment reinforces the principles of merit and reservation in government recruitment processes. There is no change in the previous position of law as the court followed its previous directions in Ashish Kumar Yadav and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that the State of Uttar Pradesh had acted correctly in adjusting candidates from reserved categories to the open category based on merit within the same selection process. The Court found no merit in the petitioners’ arguments and upheld the State’s actions, reinforcing the principles of merit and reservation in government recruitment.