(Uday Umesh Lalit, Indu Malhotra and Hemant Gupta, JJ.)
Miscellaneous Application No(s). 2641/2019 in SLP(C) No. 23223/2018
Saurav Yadav and Others _________________________ Petitioner(s);
v.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others ___________________ Respondent(s).
(IA No. 190840/2019 – Clarification/Direction IA No. 22166/2020 – Discharge of Advocate on Record IA No. 27822/2020 – Intervention/Impleadment IA No. 25611/2020 – Intervention/Impleadment IA No. 27928/2020 – Intervention/Impleadment IA No. 22167/2020 – Permission to File Application for Direction)
Miscellaneous Application No(s). 2641/2019; SLP(C) No. 23223/2018; IA No. 190840/2019; IA No. 22166/2020; IA No. 27822/2020; IA No. 25611/2020; IA No. 27928/2020; and IA No. 22167/2020, decided on March 4, 2020
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. In M.A. No. 2641 of 2019 the case in respect of two applicants is projected while in I.A. No. 25611/2019 the matter is being agitated with respect to other 20 candidates.
2. Issue notice on I.A. No. 25611/2019 returnable on 24.3.2020.
3. Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, learned Senior Advocate fairly accepted that out of 32 female candidates, 11 candidates belong to the category of SC girls while other 21 belong to the category of OBC girls and that there is no case in so far as candidates belonging to SC-girls category is concerned.
4. In so far as OBC girls are concerned. Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, learned Senior Advocate submitted that all these girls had secured marks greater than cut off namely 274.89 which was declared for females (General) category. Our attention is invited to page 110 of the Compliance Affidavit which shows that some female candidates who had scored marks in the range of 274-275, have been selected.
5. It is the submission that the applicant girls of the category of OBC girls had scored marks greater than those General category girls who were selected.
6. One of the submissions sought to be advanced by the learned counsel for the State was that the category of OBC Females was already exhausted in the first round and the selection which was undertaken pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in Hanuman Dutt Shukla case1 and in cases decided subsequently on same lines, was only confined to the candidates who had been disqualified for having used blades/erasers or whiteners. Since the selection was confined to such candidates, and as the category of OBC female was already exhausted, no candidates could be appointed from and out of OBC female candidates. However, the fact remains that females coming from General Category who had secured marks in the range of 274-275, going by Page 110, have definitely been appointed, whereas applicant OBC-girls had secured marks greater than them.
7. It thus, prima facie does not stand to reason how candidates in the General Category could be appointed who had secured less number of marks than the applicant girls.
8. Let this aspect be explained by the State by filing an appropriate affidavit within seven days from today.
9. List the matter on 24.3.2020.
———
1 Hanuman Dutt Shukla v. State of U.P., (2018) 16 SCC 447 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 251
