Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard appeals against a High Court judgment that quashed the selection process for 6628 posts of Technical Assistant (Group-C) in the Uttar Pradesh Agriculture Department. The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission had issued an advertisement in 2013 with a certain category-wise distribution of vacancies. After the written examination, the State Government revised the distribution based on a complaint and inquiry, finding that earlier calculations were wrong, particularly regarding the adjustment of diploma holders. The revised distribution increased reserved category vacancies and decreased unreserved ones. The High Court held that this change after the written examination amounted to changing the rules of the game, violating Rule 15(3) of the UP Subordinate Agriculture Services Rules, 1993 and Section 3(1) of the UP Reservation Act, 1994, and quashed the selection from the interview stage. The Supreme Court, however, found that the revision was to correct errors and fulfill reservation mandates, not to alter eligibility criteria. The Court noted that the private respondents had participated in the interview without protest and were estopped from challenging the revision. The Court also observed that the High Court's finding of 88% reserved category selection was erroneous. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and upheld the selection process.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Reservation - Revision of Vacancies - Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 - The State Government revised the category-wise distribution of vacancies for Technical Assistant posts after the written examination but before the interview, based on a rectification of earlier wrongful calculations. The High Court quashed the selection process holding that this changed the rules of the game. The Supreme Court held that the revision was to fulfill constitutional and statutory reservation mandates and did not alter eligibility criteria, thus not vitiating the selection. (Paras 1-10) B) Service Law - Selection Process - Estoppel - Candidates who participated in the interview without protest and were unsuccessful cannot later challenge the revised vacancy distribution. The principle of estoppel applies. (Paras 7-8) C) Service Law - Reservation - Upper Limit of 50% - The revised distribution did not exceed the 50% ceiling for reserved categories as per constitutional mandates. The High Court's finding of 88% reserved category selection was based on a misinterpretation of the data. (Paras 4, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the revision of category-wise vacancies after the written examination but before the interview amounts to changing the rules of the game, thereby vitiating the selection process.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court judgment, and upheld the selection process. The Court directed that the status quo order be vacated and the selected candidates continue in their posts.
Law Points
- Reservation
- Selection Process
- Change in Vacancy Distribution
- Rules of the Game
- Estoppel
- Participation in Selection
