Allahabad High Court Refuses To Provide Benefit Of EWS Reservation For Recruitment Of 69000 Assistant Teachers
|The Allahabad High Court has refused to provide benefit of EWS (Economically Weaker Section) reservation for the recruitment of 69,000 Assistant Teachers which was held in the year 2020.
The Court was dealing with a batch of pleas filed by the candidates who participated in Assistant Teachers Recruitment Examination-2019 (ATRE) and scored more than minimum qualifying marks.
A Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery said, “An Act has always more legal value in compare to any Office Memorandum, therefore in case of any ambiguity, provisions of Act No. 10 of 2020 would prevail. Section 7 of U.P. Act No. 10 of 2020 provides that O.M. dated 18.02.2019 shall be deemed to have issued under said scheme and O.M. was provided legal sanctity only after aforesaid Act was come into force and not before it and since procedure for selection for 69000 posts of Assistant Teachers was commenced prior to 31.08.2020, therefore, State of U.P. was not legally bound to provide EWS reservation in said recruitment process.”
Senior Advocate G.K. Singh represented the petitioners while Advocate Shruti Malviya represented the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
It was the case of petitioners that in 2018, the State Government issued a Government Order for conducting “ATRE-2019”, which was conducted in 2019. The petitioners participated in said examination under Unreserved (General) category and result thereof was issued in 2020, wherein all petitioners were qualified i.e., scored more than minimum qualifying marks. It was further case of petitioners that the State Government initiated further process of selection of 69,000 posts of Assistant Teachers for appointment in primary education in State of U.P.
Meanwhile, in pursuance of 103rd Amendment in Constitution, petitioners got their EWS certificate issued by the competent authority and they represented before concerned respondents to provide 10% reservation of EWS. The petitioners approached the High Court in June, 2023. During pendency of their writ petition, process of selection was completed and petitioners were not selected since they were placed lower in merit. It was submitted that the State was under obligation to provide 10% EWS reservation in examination in question since it was held after above referred 103rd Constitutional Amendment was notified as well as subsequent to Office Memorandum whereby in principal EWS reservation was adopted by the State.
The High Court in view of the above facts observed, “Now, I have to consider scope of above referred clause 4 (IV) of O.M. dated 18.02.2019 that since selection process forrecruitment of 69000 Assistant Teachers was commenced (if the argument of petitioner is deemed to be accepted) with a G.O. dated 16.05.2019 i.e. after 18.02.2019, whether State of U.P. was under a legal obligation to provide reservation for EWS or not?”
The Court added that the arrangement of reservation to EWS will be applicable on notification issued after February 1, 2019 for recruitment of State services, however, at that stage, no Act was enacted in State of U.P. and above arrangement was provided by an Office Memorandum and later on, it was validated by way of enactment of U.P. Act.
“U.P. Act No. 10 of 2020 was enacted on 31.08.2020 with a specific saving clause that provisions of this Act shall not apply to cases which were initiated before commencement of Act and admittedly in present case, process of selection was initiated prior to 31.08.2020 (as per stand of both parties). … By validating O.M. dated 18.02.2019, the Act has validated if any reservation was provided to EWS on basis of said O.M. prior to enactment of U.P. Act No. 10 of 2020, but it could not be correct to hold that on basis of said O.M., State was bound to provide reservation to EWS in all selection process, even prior to commencement of U.P. Act No. 10 of 2020 and it was only after enactment of said Act, the State is under a legal obligation to provide reservation to EWS and not before it”, it noted.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions and refused to grant the relief sought.
Cause Title- Shivam Pandey and 11 Others v. State of UP and 2 Others (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:36085)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate G.K. Singh, Advocates Seemant Singh, Anurag Tripathi, Irshad Ali, and Rahul Kumar Mishra.
Respondents: Advocate Shruti Malviya, L.M. Singh, Manvendra Dixit, Suresh Srivastava, and Ritesh Kumar Singh.