ATRE-19| Allahabad HC Directs UP Govt. To Prepare Fresh Selection List Of 69000 Candidates For Appointment Of Assistant Teachers

The Division Bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Brij Raj Singh, while modifying the impugned judgment, directed, “(i) The State Government/concerned authorities shall prepare a select list of 69,000 candidates for appointment as Assistant Teachers on the basis of ATRE-19 as per Appendix – 1 to the Service Rules, 1981 afresh, ignoring the select lists dated 01.06.2020 and 05.01.2022. We are conscious of the fact that the learned Single Judge has already quashed the select list of 6800 candidates dated 05.01.2022 vide impugned judgment…(ii) After preparation of select list in terms of quality points enumerated in Rule 14 of Service Rules, 1981, reservation policy be adopted as envisaged under Section 3 (6) of Reservation Act, 1994…(iii) If a reserved category candidate acquires merit equivalent to the merit prescribed for the general category, then Meritorious Reserved Category candidate shall be migrated to the general category as per the provisions contained in Section 3 (6) of the Reservation Act, 1994…(iv) The benefit of vertical reservation given in terms of the directions issued above shall give away to the horizontal reservation as per the Statutes/Rules/Government Orders applicable in this behalf.”

Advocates Sridhar Awasthi and Amit Kr. Singh Bhadauriya appeared for the Appellants while CSC Amit Kr. Singh Bhadauriya appeared for the Respondents.

A bunch of appeals were filed involving a common question of facts and law i.e. how the benefit of reservation as per the mandate of Section 3(6) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (‘Reservation Act, 1994’) was to be accorded to the reserved category candidates and on what parameters a candidate belonging to the reserved category may be migrated against the field of general category.

Four categories of Appellants approached the Court i.e. 1) Reserved Category candidates challenging the impugned judgment and order to the extent that MRC candidates, who have obtained quality points at par with general category candidates, have not been placed in the general category and they have been treated as a reserved category in violation of Sections 3(1) and 3(6) of the Reservation Act, 1994 and further the reserved category candidates forming part of the 6800 candidates as per the select list, had not been appointed in view of the pending litigation, which is adversely affecting their service prospect and benefits;

Further, 2) General Category candidates challenging the impugned judgment and order to the extent that the reserved category candidates, who got the benefit of reservation in TET, cannot be migrated from the reserved category to the unreserved category.; 3)Physically Handicapped Category candidates impugned the judgement and order to the extent that 4% reservation earmarked for the physically handicapped category has not been given while preparing the merit list; 4) Interveners.

The Single Judge while deciding the writ petitions on the issue had held that the marks obtained in the open competition of ATRE-2019 had laid the just basis for implementing the Reservation Act, 1994 to compartmentalize the eligible candidates in their respective streams of vertical reservation and any further marks derived on the screening of other qualifications as per Rule 14 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (‘Service Rules, 1981’) read with Appendix – I shall not alter the position for the purposes of migration from reserved category to an unreserved field, therefore, the vertical reservation once operated and implemented by the State at the stage of the result of the ATRE-2019, would bind all the eligible candidates in terms of the circular.

The Division Bench observed, “From a plain reading of Section 3(6) of the Reservation Act, 1994, it is clear that the implementation of the rule of reservation is dependent upon two significant terms, namely, ‘merit’ and ‘open competition’. Thus in the case at hand, the real dispute is as to what is the procedure for determining the ultimate merit of a candidate to compartmentalize him/her in either of the categories, i.e., unreserved or reserved and secondly, as to what is to be understood as an open competition. In so far as the question of merit is concerned, Rule 14 of the Service Rules, 1981 provides us a complete guidance…”

After examining Rule 14 of the Service Rules, 1981, the Court said that the merit of a candidate is the total number of quality points and weightage obtained as a result of the computation of total marks derived from all the standards fixed in Appendix – I. It is for this reason, that Rule 14(5) defines such a figure to be a merit of the candidate according to the marks and such a list by virtue of Rule 14(2) is termed to be the merit list.

It added that the prescription of the examination and its integral parts is inclusive and no part of it taken to be exclusive would qualify to be an open competition for the purposes of compartmentalization of the candidates in either of the categories. Any deviation would defeat the very essence and the object of merit prescribed to be determined as per the rules.

“Once the merit is prescribed to be derived from the prescribed procedure as above, it leaves no scope for the Court to have a different view on the basis of some qualifying test which unless prescribed to serve the object of Section 3 (6) of the Act would not be a just and fair basis for achieving such an object. Moreover, this qualifying test like any other qualifying exam satisfies the twin test of its qualification and being a part of the final determination of quality point marks. This brings us to the other dimension of the controversy as to what would be the meaning of ‘open competition’ of which the merit is relevant to implement the rule of vertical reservation. The open competition is not defined under the Service Rules, however, the recruitment body like Union Public Service Commission as far back as 1981 has understood the same…”, the Court said.

As regards the rule of migration, the Court held that the rule would only come into play on the determination of the overall merit of a candidate at the end of the selection process and not at an early stage for which the intention of Rule Making Authority, i.e., the State cannot be gathered either from the circular or the Rules applicable in this behalf.

The Court held, “Since as per rules, merit list is statutorily defined and the list has to be drawn on the basis of quality point marks from the inclusive standards specified in the Appendix - I, therefore, the view taken by the learned Single Judge does not seem to be a correct view within the purview of law and calls for interference. Even if it may be a possible view as has been taken by appreciating the essence of circular dated 07.01.2019, the decision solely based on the circular is erroneous insofar as the restriction imposed on migration from reserve category to general is concerned.”

Accordingly, the Court opined that the marks derived on the basis of the entire process i.e. ATRE-2019 coupled with other criteria of educational and training record would serve the broader and real object of Section 3(6) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994.

Hence, the Court disposed of the appeals with aforesaid directions.

Cause Title: Mahendra Pal and Ors v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors and other connected matters(Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:55715-DB)

Appearances:

Appellants: Advocates Sridhar Awasthi, Amit Kr. Singh Bhadauriya, Kamlesh Kumar Yadav, Susheel Kumar, Pt. S. Chandra, Manju Nagaur, Ravi Kant Mishra, Onkar Singh, Mujtaba Kamal Sherwani, Akshat Kumar, Raj Kumar Mishra, Upasna Mishra, Neel Kamal Mishra, Anuj Singh, Kaushlendra Tewari, Dharmendra Singh, Deepak Singh, Kaushlendra Tewari, Suresh Kumar Pandey, Shwetanshu Prakash Dubey, Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, Shreya Chaudhary and others.

Respondents: C.S.C. Amit Kr. Singh Bhadauriya, Amrendra Nath Tripathi, Anurag Tripathi, Durga Prasad Shukla, Pawan Kumar Dwivedi, Ran Vijay Singh, Shradha Mishra and Vivek Mishra.

Click here to read/download the Judgment