Impermissible For Open Category Candidate With Less Merit To March Ahead Of Reserved Category Candidate: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court observed that it was impermissible for an open category candidate with less merit to “march ahead” of a reserved category candidate for public employment on the ground that there was a vacancy in the open category.
The Court had to determine whether migration from one category to another category was permissible or not.
A Single Bench of Justice Ajit Kumar observed, “On the principle that merit is to be reckoned with in public employment and the candidates having merit have to be given preference despite the categories to which they belong to. So, in such event when merit of general category is higher and a reserved category candidate is able to score higher than the last cut off of the general category then such reserved category candidate would be migrated to open category.”
Sr. Advocate Atipriya Gautam represented the petitioners, while A.A.G. Neeraj Tripathi appeared for the respondents.
The petitioners had applied for the post of Assistant Teachers in Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) advertised by the UP Secondary Education Service Selection Board.
The petitioners had argued that State authorities were not justified in giving appointments against the vacant situations from the waiting list of those general category candidates who were lower in merit than OBC/reserved category candidates.
The Court explained that while preparing a merit list, the selecting body had to see what were the last cut-off marks of each category in respect of the vertical reservation.
The Court held that “there is no migration from general to reserved category but there is migration from reserved category to general category so there is only one way traffic and this is why general category is called open category.”
The High Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 (3) SCC (SUPP) 217 where the migration of reserved category candidates from their reserved category to the open category in public employment under Article 16(4) of the Constitution was justified.
The Court observed that “no one can be appointed against rules in public employment, may be interpreting it wrongly or mistakenly and if a wrong has been done it must be undone.”
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the petition.
Cause Title: Akhilesh Kumar & Ors. v. State Of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:41191)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Sr. Advocate Atipriya Gautam and Advocates Utkarsh Birla
Respondents: AAG Neeraj Tripathi; C.S.C. A.K.S.Parihar and J.N. Maurya