Holding

The re‑allocation of candidates from reserved categories to the open category, done in accordance with the Supreme Court's earlier directions and based on merit, is valid and not illegal.

Summary

The petitioners challenged the selection list dated 11‑11‑2019 for police constable posts, alleging that candidates originally selected under reserved categories (OBC/SC/ST) were shifted to the open category, thereby prejudicing general‑category candidates. The Supreme Court had earlier directed that the remaining 3,295 vacancies be filled strictly on merit while observing reservation principles. The State complied by preparing List‑I (open category) which included both new merit‑based candidates and those previously selected in reserved categories but now placed in the open category due to higher merit, and separate lists for OBC, SC, and ST. The Court held that such re‑allocation of already‑selected reserved‑category candidates to the open category, in accordance with the earlier Supreme Court directions, is lawful and not invalid. Consequently, the petition seeking re‑working of the list was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the shifting of candidates initially selected in reserved categories to the open category in the re‑worked selection list is illegal or invalid.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 32

Subjects

reservationmeritopen categoryvertical reservationpolice constable recruitmentre‑working of selection listArticle 32writ petitionSupreme Court directions

Judgment

[2021] 2 S.C.R. 915 915

PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH AND ORS. A
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 465 of 2020)
MARCH 16, 2021 B
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND
HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Service Law:
Reservation – Shifting of candidates of reserved category to C
open category – Validity of – In selection process,3295 vacancies
remained unfilled – As per direction of Supreme Court further process
of selection undertaken and select list prepared on 11.11.2019 –
Writ petition challenging the select list dated 11.11.2019 alleging
that the candidates who were earlier selected against reserved
D
categories, were shifted to general category – Prayed for re-working
the select-list – Held: The candidates who were initially selected in
their respective reserved categories, depending on their merit were
entitled to be put in general/open category – Such exercise cannot
be termed as illegal or invalid.
Dismissing the petition, the Court E

HELD: 1. Selection in respect of 3295 posts was undertaken
in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in Ashish
Kumar Yadav case and the State Government and its functionaries
were obliged to go strictly in order of merit and apply the principle
of reservation. [Para 8][923-E-F] F

2. It is not the grievance of the petitioners that any candidate
who had secured marks lesser than the petitioners, has been
selected. The challenge is to the shifting of candidates, who were
earlier selected against posts meant for reserved categories, to
the open category. [Para 7][923-D] G

3. The process adopted by the State Government as is
discernable from the affidavit of compliance shows that List-I dealt
with the candidates selected in ‘Open Category’ while Lists II,

H
915
916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.

A III and IV pertained to the candidates selected in ‘OBC/SC/ST
categories’ respectively. List-I comprised of two kinds of
candidates. First, those who were initially selected in their
respective vertical reserved categories (OBC/SC/ST), but
depending on their merit, were found entitled to be put in ‘Open
Category’; and secondly, new candidates who were selected on
B
the basis of their merit in various categories. Break up of 1906
candidates who were considered in ‘Open Category’ was thus
clearly set out. [Para 6][923-B-D]
4. With the availability of 3295 additional posts, in the re-
working exercise, if the candidates who were already selected
C against reserved posts were entitled to be considered against
open category posts, that exercise cannot be termed as illegal or
invalid on any count. 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.
D [Para 8][923-E-F]
Saket Kumar and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 2015
SCC OnLine Allahabad 1250; Hanuman Dutt Shukla
and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Others (2018) 16 SCC
447; Ashish Kumar Pandey and 24 others vs. State of
E U.P and 29 others 2016 SCC OnLine ALL 187;
Upendra and others vs. State of U.P. and others 2018
(7) ADJ 37 (2 e); Ashish Kumar Yadav and Ors. vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No. 20015 of 2018 – referred to.

F Case Law Reference
(2018) 16 SCC 447 referred to Para (2 c)
2018 (7) ADJ 37 referred to Para (2 e)
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
465 of 2020
G
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
Vinod Diwakar, AAG, P.S. Patwalia, Vinay Navare, Neeraj Kishan
Kaul, Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Advs.,
Anurag Dubey, Rajesh Pathak, Sumit Kumar, Kumari Supriya, Binod
H
PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 917

Mishra, Hemant Kumar, Prabodha Kumar Agrawal, Rajesh Pathak, A
Mukesh Kumar Singh, Amit, Ms. Vani Vyas, Purushottam Sharma
Tripathi, Danish Zubair Khan, Ms. Garima Prashad, Ms. Nupur Dubey,
Abhishek Tripathi, Shakil Ahmed Syed, Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Uzmi
Jameel Husain, Qazi Wakeel Ahmad, Daanish Ahmed Syed, D.K. Garg,
Dhananjay Garg, Nikhil Jain, Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, Randhir Kumar
B
Ojha, Satish Pandey, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India prays
for following reliefs: - C

A. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus
directing the Respondents to consider the Petitioners for
appointment to the post of Constable PAC & Fireman seats
meant for General Category Male Candidates in PAC &
Fireman Posts which remained unfilled till date; and D
B. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus
directing the Respondents to rectify the final select list dated
11.11.2019 in terms of three parameters i.e. merit,
preference and reservation.
E
1.1 The principal grounds raised in the petition are:-
“I. Because there are 958 seats where candidates who made it in
original select list in their reserve category in Constable (Civil)
were wrongly shifted to open category on different cadre i.e.
PAC and Fireman without actually changing their cadre as they
F
are all working on the said post (Constable Civil) for last 3 years.
Had the aforesaid 958 seats were not wrongly overlapped then
the Petitioners would have made their place in the list published
on 11.11.2019 by the Board.
II. Because, admittedly, the Respondents had filled up only 1650
seats out of 2016 seats meant for male general category candidates G
in various select list till date in Constable PAC Post and 446 seats
out of 1038 seats meant for male general category candidates in
various select list till date in Constable Fireman Post.”
2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition, in brief, are as
under:- H
918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.

A A) By issuing an advertisement on 20.06.2013, selection
process was undertaken to fill up 41610 posts of Police
Constables [U.P. Civil Police/Provincial Armed
Constabulary (PAC)/Fireman]. The petitioners had
participated in the selection process as candidates of
General Category.
B
B) After the requisite examinations, results were declared on
16.07.2015, in which 38315 candidates were successful.
Thus, as on that date, there were vacancies which were
not filled as no suitable candidates were available.
C) In Saket Kumar and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.1, the
C High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, was concerned with
the process of selection for Sub-Inspectors in U.P. Police,
which process was going on simultaneously with the instant
selection. The High Court dealt with the issue where the
candidates had used blades or whiteners while answering
D their answer papers of the main examination. By its order
dated 29.05.2015, the High Court had disqualified all such
candidates and directed that their names be deleted from
the selection list.
In the appeal arising therefrom, this Court in its decision
in Hanuman Dutt Shukla and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and
E Others2, held that those candidates who had used blades or
whiteners ought not to have been disqualified. However,
by that time, the process of selection, in terms of the decision
of the High Court in Saket Kumar1, had gone ahead and
the seniority list was already re-worked in terms of said
F decision. This Court, therefore, observed that the candidates
who had been selected as a result of directions in Saket
Kumar1, should not be thrown out from the process of
selection, but those who had used blades or whiteners be
given the advantage in a notional selection. It was also
observed that the additional number of candidates so selected
G should be reckoned as against additional posts and should
not be taken to be the part of the original posts for selection.
D) The same principles were adopted in the selection process
for Police Constables and consequently, the candidates who
1
2015 SCC OnLine Allahabad 1250 (Writ.A.No. 67782 of 2014 etc.)
H 2
(2018) 16 SCC 447
PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 919
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

had used blades or whiteners were considered in the instant A
process of selection. The selection list was re-worked and
it was found that 4429 candidates were entitled to be given
the advantage in terms of law declared in Hanuman Dutt
Shukla2.
E) In the meantime, decisions were rendered by the High Court B
in Ashish Kumar Pandey and 24 others vs. State of U.P
and 29 others3 and Upendra and others vs. State of U.P.
and others4, touching upon the issue of horizontal reservation
with which we are not presently concerned, except for the
fact that the seats remaining vacant as a result of non-
availability of candidates for the concerned horizontal C
reservation categories, became available for the same
selection process.
F) In the instant case concerning selection of police constables,
about 2312 vacancies had remained unfilled and additionally,
there were 982 vacancies arising out of causes such as D
non-reporting of the selected candidates. In the
circumstances, this Court in its Order dated 24.07.2019
passed in IA No. 103934 of 2018 and connected applications
in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20015 of 2018 (Ashish
Kumar Yadav and ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
ors.) issued following directions:- E
“It is accepted by the learned counsel for the State that
the State did not undertake any process of selection in
respect of those 2312 vacancies. In the circumstances
it is directed:
A) The State shall within a month from today complete F
the entire process of selection in respect of 2312
vacancies strictly in accordance with law.
B) The State shall follow the principle of reservation
while filling up these 2312 vacancies.
C) While filling up these vacancies, the State shall G
adhere to the minimum required qualifying marks as
devised during the process of selection but subject
to this, the State shall consider all eligible candidates
and go strictly in order of merit.
3
2016 SCC OnLine ALL 187 (Writ A. No. 37599 of 2015)
4
2018 (7) ADJ 37 : Writ C. No. 3417 of 2016 H
920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.

A D) The State shall before the next date of hearing, shall
file a list of all the selected candidates.
It is also accepted that apart from these 2312 vacancies,
there are still 982 vacancies to be filled up in the original
selection.”
B G) Therefore, further process of selection for 32955
posts was undertaken and the results were declared
on 11.11.2019. The breakup of said 3295 posts was
as under:

Sl. Category Civil PAC Fireman Total
C No. Police
1 Open 721 473 712 1906
2 OBC 615 77 39 731
3 SC 511 59 31 601
4 ST 48 6 3 57
Total 1895 615 785 3295
D
H) In the affidavit of compliance filed on behalf of the
State Government following details were submitted:-
“E. Details of result of selected 3295 candidates as
per Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order
E
In compliance of above order of Hon’ble Court
following lists and details of last selected candidates
are attached herewith.
(I) List-1- candidates selected in open category-1906
F This list contains –
(a) The names of candidates who have already
been selected in their respective vertical
category (OBC/SC/ST) but presently find their
positions in open category after redrawing the
G merit on the basis of their merit irrespective of
their social category and gender.
(b) New candidates purely on the basis of their merit
irrespective of their social category.
5
(according to the aforesaid Order dated 24.07.2019, the vacancies would be 3294,
H being total of 2312+982. However, according to the State, the actual figure was 3295)
PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 921
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

The composition of list as follows – A
(A)- Already selected candidates- 1252
OBC 1118
SC 0132
ST 0002 B
(B)- Now selected candidates-
Male Gen. 0461
Male Gen. DFF- 0005
Female Gen.- 0187
C
Female Gen. DFF- 0001
Total Male- 0466
Total Female- 0188
Grand Total 0654
D
A copy of the List I is annexed hereto and marked
as Annexure A-1
F. List-2 – candidates selected in OBC category
– 1849 (1118+731)
Since 1118 candidates belonging to OBC E
category, have already been selected and find
their position in present open category list due
to their higher merit hence 1118 unselected OBC
candidates have been selected in lieu of selected
candidates and 731 candidates have been
selected afresh as against their respective 731 F
vacancies. It is submitted that this list contains
1849 names.
A copy of the List II is annexed hereto and marked
as Annexure A-2
G. List-3- the candidates selected in SC category G
– 733 (132+601)
Since 132 candidates belonging to SC category,
have already been selected and find their
position in present open category list due to their
higher merit so 132 unselected SC candidates H
922 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.

A have been selected in lieu of selected candidates
and 601 candidates have been selected afresh
as against their respective 601 vacancies. It is
submitted that this list contains 733 names.
A copy of the List III is annexed hereto and marked
B as Annexure A-3
H. List-IV- candidates selected in ST category-59
(02+57)
Since 02 candidates, belonging to ST category,
have already been selected and find their
C position in present open category list due to their
higher merit, so 02 unselected ST candidates
have been selected in lieu of selected candidates
and 57 candidates have been selected afresh
as against their respective 57 vacancies. It is
submitted that this list contains 59 names.
D
A copy of the List IV is annexed hereto and marked
as Annexure-A-4"
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed submitting inter alia
that certain candidates coming from ‘Reserved Categories’, who were
initially selected against Reserved Categories’ seats, were now shown
E
against the ‘Open Category’ in the list published on 11.11.2019 and, thus,
the chances of ‘Open Category’ candidates to that extent stood
prejudiced. According to the petitioners, there should not have been any
adjustment of the candidates who were already selected in ‘Reserved
Categories’ and all those seats should have been made available to the
F ‘Open Category’. In this light, the principal grounds as quoted hereinabove
are raised and the prayer for re-working of the select list dated 11.11.2019
is made.
4. In the affidavit-in-reply filed in the present matter, marks
obtained by all the petitioners have been set out. The State has given
G details about the last selected candidates in various categories and has
stated that the last selected person in ‘General Male Category’ was one
Pawan Singh (having secured 313.616 marks). Except the petitioners
at serial Nos. 22 and 24, who had secured 313.616 marks, none of the
48 petitioners had secured marks in excess of 313.616. It is also stated
that since large number of candidates had secured exactly 313.616 marks,
H
PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 923
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

tiebreaker principle was adopted in which these two petitioners got A
eliminated.
5. We have heard Mr. P. S. Patwalia, learned Senior Advocate
for the petitioners, Mr. Vinod Diwakar, learned Additional Advocate
General for the State and Mr. B. P. Patil and Mr. Vinay Navare, learned
Senior Advocates for Intervenors. B
6. The process adopted by the State Government as is discernable
from the affidavit of compliance shows that List-I dealt with the candidates
selected in ‘Open Category’ while Lists II, III and IV pertained to the
candidates selected in ‘OBC/SC/ST categories’ respectively. List-I
comprised of two kinds of candidates. First, those who were initially C
selected in their respective vertical reserved categories (OBC/SC/ST),
but depending on their merit, were found entitled to be put in ‘Open
Category’; and secondly, new candidates who were selected on the
basis of their merit in various categories. Break up of 1906 candidates
who were considered in ‘Open Category’ was thus clearly set out.
D
7. It is not the grievance of the petitioners that any candidate who
had secured marks lesser than the petitioners, has been selected. The
challenge is to the shifting of candidates, who were earlier selected against
posts meant for reserved categories, to the open category.
8. Selection in respect of 3295 posts was undertaken in accordance E
with the directions issued by this Court in Ashish Kumar Yadav and
Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (supra) and the State
Government and its functionaries were obliged to go strictly in order of
merit and apply the principle of reservation. 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 F
against open category posts, that exercise cannot be termed as illegal or
invalid on any count. 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.
9. We, therefore, see no merit in this petition which is accordingly G
dismissed.

Kalpana K. Tripathy Petition dismissed.

H