(Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran, JJ.)
MA No. 2641/2019 in SLP (Civil) No. 23223/2018, decided on July 22, 2020
Saurav Yadav and Others _________________________ Petitioner(s);
v.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others ___________________ Respondent(s).
(IA No. 190840/2019 – For Clarification/Direction; IA No. 22166/2020 – For Discharge of Advocate on Record; IA No. 27822/2020 – For Intervention/Impleadment; IA No. 25611/2020 – For Intervention/Impleadment; IA No. 27928/2020 – For Intervention/Impleadment; and, IA No. 22167/2020 – For Permission to File Application For Direction)
MA No. 2641/2019; SLP (Civil) 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
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. During the course of hearing, our attention was invited to the Compliance Affidavit dated 13.11.2019 filed in this Court in Civil Appeal No. 3508 of 2020. Paragraph 4 of the said affidavit stated as under:
“4. Cut-off marks for different categories are as under:—
OC | OBC | SC | ST | |
Male Cut-off | 313.616 | 307.233 | 283.4033 | 247.2333 |
Female (General Category) Cut-off : 274.8928
All the OBC, SC and ST candidates securing more than 313.616 marks have also been selected in open/unreserved category.”
2. Mr. Vinod Diwakar, learned AAG for the State submitted that in the category of Male Constables, OBC, SC and ST candidates securing more than the cut-off, namely, 313.616 for Open Category Candidates, were also selected in the open/unreserved category.
3. However, same yardstick was not applied with respect to the Female Candidates and justification for such exercise was on the basis of the directions issued by the High Court in its order dated 16.03.2016 in Ashish Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P.1 and order dated 20.02.2019 in Pramod Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.2.
4. We direct the State to place on record the aforementioned two orders1, 2 passed by the High Court.
5. It must be recorded that it is accepted that pursuant to the order dated 24-7-20193, 188 Female Candidates were given appointments in the Open Category of Constables and no candidate coming from the category of OBC, SC and ST (Female) was accommodated against the Open Category (Female) though said candidates had secured more marks than the last candidate in the Open Category (Female).
6. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that out of said 188 Female Candidates, only 154 Female Candidates have actually been appointed and have joined. The details in that behalf as well as of the candidates from OBC, SC and ST (Female) who secured more marks than the last candidate in Open Category (Female) shall also be furnished by way of an affidavit by the State before the next date of hearing.
7. Pending further consideration, we direct the State not to fill-up the posts, if not already filled up.
8. List the matter for further consideration on 28.07.2020.
———
1 2016 SCC OnLine All 187
2 Writ-A No. 18442 of 2018, order dated 20-2-2019 (All)
3 Ashish Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P., IA No. 103934 of 2018 in SLP (C) No. 20015 of 2018, order dated 24-7-2019 (SC)
