Allahabad High Court
Dharmendra Kumar & 2 Others (Inre 5158 ... vs Abhishek Kumar & 19 Others on 6 April, 2017
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH A.F.R. Court No.1 Reserved 1. Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 416 of 2016 Appellant :- Dharmendra Kumar & 2 Others (Inre 5158 S/S 2015) Respondent :- Abhishek Kumar & 19 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Laltaprasad Misra,Jay Shanker Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amit Bose,Ankit Singh,Rajat Rajan Singh,Vidhu Bhushan Kalia Connected with 2. Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 417 of 2016 Appellant :- Krishna Mohan Singh & 185 Others (6395 S/S 2015) Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy., Deptt. Of Home & 17 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Vidhu Bhushan Kalia,Rajat Rajan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And 3. Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 418 of 2016 Appellant :- Atul Verma & 7 Others (Inre 6395 S/S 2015) Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy., Deptt. Of Home & 17 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Vidhu Bhushan Kalia,Rajat Rajan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And 4. Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 420 of 2016 Appellant :- Naveen Chandra (Inre 6395 S/S 2015) Respondent :- Atul Verma & 25 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Apoorva Tewari,Prakhar Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ankit Pande,Ankit Singh,B.K.Shukla,Birendra Singh,Vidhu Bhushan Kalia And 5. Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 421 of 2016 Appellant :- Brijesh Bhardwaj & 2 Others (Inre 3239 S/S 206) Respondent :- Ajay Sinha & 44 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Apoorva Tewari,Prakhar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vidhu Bhushan Kalia And 6. Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 422 of 2016 Appellant :- Dhirendra Kumar Rai & 6 Others (Inre 5158 S/S 2015) Respondent :- Abhishek Kumar Singh & 25 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Apoorva Tewari,Prakhar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dr. L.P. Mishra,Pushkar Baghel,Vidhu Bhushan Kalia And 7. Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 426 of 2016 Appellant :- Dharmendra Kumar Mishra & 6 Others (5158 S/S 2015) Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.,Deptt. Of Home & 19 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Seemant Singh,Rajendra Singh Chauhan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjai Dixit,Vidhu Bhushan Kalia And 8. Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 439 of 2016 Appellant :- Alok Kumar Singh & 64 Others (Inre 5158 S/S 2015) Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy., Deptt. Of Home & 10 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Pankaj Pathak,Alok Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vidhu Bhushan Kalia And 9. Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 444 of 2016 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.,Deptt. Of Home & 2 Others Respondent :- Abhishek Kumar Singh & 16 Others (Inre 5158 S/S 2015) Counsel for Appellant :- Standing Counsel Counsel for Respondent :- Vidhu Bhushan Kalia,Amit Bose,Apoorva Tiwari,Dr. L.P. Mishra And 10. Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 476 of 2016 Appellant :- Syed Hasan Jafar Rizvi & 7 Others (Inre 5158 S/S 2015) Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.,Deptt. Of Home & 6 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vidhu Bhushan Kalia Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
These Special Appeals under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court have been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 24.08.2016 delivered by learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions, leading writ petition being Writ Petition No. 5158 (SS) of 2015, whereby selection to the posts of Sub Inspector (Civil Police) and Platoon Commander has been quashed from the stage of declaration of the result of main written examination. The select list which was also assailed before the learned Single Judge has also been quashed. A direction has further been issued by learned Single Judge to the opposite parties therein to prepare the result of main written examination and declare the same afresh keeping in view the observations made therein. It has further been directed by the judgment under appeal that the selection shall accordingly proceed and shall be finalized in accordance with the rules and the observations made in the said judgment and also keeping in view the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Ashish Kumar Pandey and others Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ-A 37599 of 2015), which has been upheld in special appeal by a Division Bench of this Court. Learned Single Judge has further directed that in respect of certain questions/answers i.e. question Nos. 2, 12, 16 and 26, the U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board shall revisit the matter and take remedial measures in accordance with the past practice in consonance with law.
These Special Appeals can be classified in two categories. Special Appeal Nos. 416 of 2016, 420 of 2016, 421 of 2016, 422 of 2016, 426 of 2016, 439 of 2016 and 476 of 2016 have been filed by those candidates who were declared successful in the selection which was under challenge before the learned Single Judge. Special Appeal Nos. 417 of 2016 and 418 of 2016 have been filed by certain candidates only with the prayer to modify the judgment and order dated 24.08.2016 to the extent it has held that reservation shall be applied at the stage of main written examination and further that the provision of Section 3(6) of Reservation Act, 1994 would apply.
The State of U.P. has also filed Special Appeal No. 444 of 2016 challenging the judgment and order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge dated 24.08.2016.
Subject matter of writ petitions which have been decided by the judgment and order under appeal relates to selection to the post of Sub Inspector (Civil Police) and Platoon Commander which was held in pursuance of the advertisement issued on 19.05.2011.
Before learned Single Judge a challenge was also made to paragraph 4 of the Government Order dated 25.03.1994.
For the purpose of regulating recruitment to the post of Sub Inspectors and Inspectors, statutory rules have been framed which are known as U.P. Sub Inspectors and Inspectors (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2008 (herein after referred to as ''Service Rules, 2008'). The Service Rules, 2008 prescribe various stages which the selection is to comprise of. The posts of Sub Inspector (Civil Police) which were advertised, were 3698 in total, out of which 777 were reserved for Scheduled Castes, 74 were reserved for Scheduled Tribes, 998 were reserved for Other Backward Class category candidates and 1849 were meant for open/unreserved category candidates. So far as the posts of Platoon Commander are concerned, the total number of posts for which selection was held were 312, out of which the posts reserved for Schedule Castes were 66, and those reserved for Scheduled Tribes were 6. Similarly, 84 posts were reserved for Other Backward Class category candidates and 156 were meant for open/unreserved category candidates. The total number of posts of Sub Inspector and Platoon Commander, thus, clubbed together which were advertised, were 4010. Out of all these posts, 843 were reserved for Scheduled Castes, 80 for Scheduled Tribes, 1082 for Other Backward Class category candidates and 2005 were meant for open/unserved category candidates.
Reservation in terms of the rules of reservations applicable in the State of U.P. was also to be applied including horizontal reservation for dependents of freedom fighter and ex-servicemen to the extent of 2% and 5% respectively. Reservation for women candidates was also to be applied to the extent of 20% under the relevant government orders.
Learned Single Judge, on the basis of pleadings available on record and submissions made by the learned counsel representing the respective parties culled out the following points/questions which according to learned Single Judge had fallen for his consideration.
1. Locus standi of the petitioners to maintain this writ petition challenging the criteria of recruitment after having participated in the selection process, specially the challenge to the government order dated 25.3.1994.
2. The permissibility of rounding off the percentage of marks for the purpose of eligibility for the main written examination, based on the marks secured in the preliminary examination, in the light of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court reported in (2011) 8 SCC 108.
3. Applicability of horizontal reservation for women dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-servicemen in the selection.
4. The calling of more than three times candidates for the purposes of group-discussion in alleged contravention of U.P. Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules 2008 as well as the instructions issued in this regard, for the O.B.C. Category.
5. The alleged inclusion of candidates who had used Whitener in the O.M.R. Sheets, allegedly in contravention of the judgment of this court in the Case of Saket Kumar & ors. v. State of U.P.
6. The number of O.B.C. and other reserved category candidates who were called for recruitment under the unreserved category based on their merit, bereft of reservation, and its effect on the application of reservation, to the recruitment in the light of the dictum of a Constitution Bench of the supreme court in the case of R.K. Sabbarwal v. State of Punjab, 1995 SCC (2) 745.
7. Whether any prejudice is being caused to the petitioners assuming the aforesaid infractions, apart from the alleged illegalities.
8. Subject to the locus standi of petitioners, as referred above, the validity of the G.O. Dated 25.3.1994 and the application of the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Jitendra Kumar v. State of U.P., 2010 3 SCC 119.
Learned Single Judge on the basis of detailed discussion of the arguments made by respective counsel and also scrutinizing the material available on record has given findings on each of the aforesaid points determined by him. Certain individuals had sought intervention and impleadment in the writ petitions and learned Single Judge, finding the stand of such applicants seeking intervention and impleadment to be the same as that of the official opposite parties, had provided right of hearing to all such applicants.
We have heard the learned counsel representing the respective parties at length and have also perused the record of the writ petitions decided by the judgment and order under appeal herein.
Locus of the petitioners, who were unsuccessful candidates, to file writ petition before the learned Single Judge, has vehemently been challenged and finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the judgment and order under appeal in respect of the locus of the petitioners to maintain the writ petition has been severely attacked by stating that unsuccessful candidates cannot challenge the selection process after having participated in the same. Challenging the locus of the petitioners to file the writ petition and maintain the same, it has been contended that the candidates having participated in the selection and not succeeded cannot be permitted to challenge the selection in view of the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases including the cases of Pradeep Kumar Rai and others Vs Dinesh Kumar Pandey and others, reported in (2015) 11 Supreme Court Cases 493, Madras Institute of Development Studies and another Vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan and others, reported in (2016) 1 Supreme Court Cases 454, judgment and order dated 21.10.2016, passed in Civil Appeal No. 9092 of 2012, Ashok Kumar and another Vs. State of Bihar and others and Trivedi Himanshu Ghanshyambhai V. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and others, reported in (2007) 8 SCC, 644.
On the strength of the aforesaid judgments, it has been submitted that a candidate after participating in the process of selection, if is unsuccessful, cannot turn around and challenge the selection. It has further been contended in this regard that in case violation of any rule in the process of selection does not cause any prejudice to any candidate, such violation will not vitiate the selection if the same is found to be otherwise objective and purposeful. Submission further is that some finality is to be attached to a selection at some stage.
Opposing the aforesaid contention whereby challenge is made to the locus of the petitioners to institute the proceedings before the learned Single Judge challenging the selection, it has been argued that nowhere before learned Single Judge criteria of selection was challenged, neither the procedure for selection as finds mentioned in the Service Rules, 2008 or in the Instructions Manual or in the advertisement was challenged; the petitioners had challenged rather the manner in which the selection has been held in violation of the Service Rules, 2008 and Instructions Manual as also law declared in this regard by the courts.
Learned Single Judge while considering the competing arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties in this regard has held that in the writ petitions the procedure or criteria for selection as prescribed in the Service Rules, 2008, Instructions Manual or the advertisement were not challenged. Learned Single Judge has further opined that the grounds taken for challenging the locus of the petitioners to file writ petition would be applicable in a case where candidates after participating in the selection raise a challenge to a rule or criteria or procedure known to them before appearing in such selection and where selection based on the said criteria or procedure given in the rules is under challenge. It has further been found by learned Single Judge in the judgment and order under appeal that the petitioners of the writ petitions were aggrieved by the manner in which horizontal reservation has been applied while preparing the select list and had asserted in the writ petitions that the select list had been prepared contrary to the Service Rules, 2008, Clause 3.3(3) of the Instructions Manual and the law laid down by the courts. It has further been observed by learned Single Judge that the grievance is in relation to the application of rounding off marks without existence of any such provision in the Service Rules, 2008 or in the Instructions Manual. Further grievance raised in the writ petitions on behalf of the petitioners therein was that calling of more candidates than three times the number of vacancies for the purpose of group discussion was violative of Rule 15(f) of the Service Rules, 2008 and Clause 2.7 of the Instructions Manual. It was further asserted by the petitioners that certain answers to the questions were also incorrect which ultimately had affected evaluation of the examination.
Having examined the findings returned on this issue by the learned Single Judge and having tested the same as against the submissions made on behalf of certain candidates in this regard, we are of the view that the view taken by the learned Single Judge regarding locus of the petitioners to file the writ petitions cannot be faulted with. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar and others Vs. Shakti Raj and others, reported in (1997) 9 SCC, 527 has held that in case certain glaring illegalities have been committed in the procedure to get candidates for examination under the Rules, so also in the method of the selection and exercise of the power in taking out from the purview of the Selection Board and also conduct of the selection in accordance with rules, the principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence will have no application. Para-16 of the said judgment in the case of Raj Kumar and others Vs. Shakti Raj (Supra) is quoted herein below:-
"16.Yet another circumstance is that the Government had not taken out the posts from the purview of the Board, but after the examinations were conducted under the 1955 Rules and after the results were announced, it exercised the power under the proviso to para 6 of 1970 Notification and the posts were taken out from the purview thereof. Thereafter the Selection Committee was constituted for selection of the candidates. The entire procedure is also obviously illegal. It is true, as contended by Shri Madhava Reddy, that this Court in Madan Lal vs. State of & K [(1995) 3 SCC 486] and other decisions referred therein had held that a candidate having taken a chance to appear in an interview and having remained unsuccessful, cannot turn round and challenge either the constitution of the Selection Board or the method of Selection as being illegal; he is estopped to question the correctness of the selection. But in his case, the Government have committed glaring illegalities in the procedure to get the candidates for examination under 1955 Rules, so also in the method of selection and exercise of the power in taking out from the purview of the Board and also conduct of the selection in accordance with the Rules. Therefore, the principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence has no application to the facts in this case. Thus, we consider that the procedure offered under the 1955 Rules adopted by the Government or the Committee as well as the action take by the Government are not correct in law.
It is noticeable that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case of Raj Kumar Vs. Shakti Raj (Supra) has considered the law that a candidate having taken a chance to appear in the interview and having remained unsuccessful, cannot turn round and challenge either the constitution of the Selection Board or the method of the selection as being illegal and that he is estopped to question the correctness of the selection. Having considered the said legal principle, Hon'ble Supreme Court further carved exceptions to permit the locus to a candidate to challenge the selection even after participation and his failure therein on certain grounds such as the illegality or irregularity in the method of selection and exercise of power by the selecting body and also in the conduct of the selection in accordance with rules. In such circumstances, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that principle of estoppel by conduct will have no application.
We may also refer to a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. through Secretary Law Department and others, reported in 2009 (1) AWC(Supp.) 239, wherein it has been held that the proposition that a candidate having participated in the selection and declared unsuccessful in the same cannot be permitted to challenge the selection, is not of universal application. It has further been held by the Division Bench of this Court in the said case of Rajesh Kumar Srivastava (Supra) that such general principle is not free from exceptions as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sadanand Halo and others Vs. Mumtaj Ali Sheikh and others, reported in (2008) 4 SCC, 619. Para-16 of the said judgment in the case of Rajesh Kumar Srivastava (Supra) is quoted herein below:-
"16. However, the above proposition is not of universal application. It is not applicable where the vires of the rules is under challenge as has been observed in Munindra Kumar (supra). It has also no application where the unsuccessful candidates challenges the selection of a unqualified selected candidate to a public office as has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 9990 of 1992 of Dr. Syed Ahason and Ors. V. Aligarh Muslim University and Ors. decided on 23.02.07 and followed in 2007(3) ADJ 114, Aejaz Ahmad and Ors. V. Aligarh Muslim University and Ors. Even the latest decision of the Apex Court reported in MANU/SC/7226/2008: (2008) 4 SCC 619, Sadanand Halo and Ors Vs. Mumtaz Ali Sheikh and Ors. lays down that the above general principle is not free from exceptions. Now in the instant case the appellants have participated in the selection process as per the procedure prescribed and notified. However, undisputedly, the prescribed procedure though adopted but was given up as selection was alone on the basis of interview without taking into account the marks of the written test. In these circumstances their case falls within the exceptional category and they are entitle to maintain the writ petition. It was only alter selection that serious illegalities about the change in the process of selection after the candidates were examined and interviewed were detected".
In the instant case, what we find is that challenge to any rule or prescription or criteria or procedure for selection was not made by the petitioners before the learned Single Judge. What was assailed before the learned Single Judge was the manner in which the selection was held which according to the petitioners was contrary not only to the Service Rules, 2008 but also to the Instructions Manual. It was contended by the petitioners before the learned Single Judge that application of rounding off marks was not permissible in absence of any such provision in the Service Rules, 2008 or in the Instructions Manual. They had also contended that calling of candidates more than three times the vacancies for the purpose of group discussions was also in violation of Rule 15(f) of the Service Rules, 2008 and Clause 2.7 of the Instructions Manual.
In the aforesaid view of the matter, we are not impressed by the submissions made in regard to the locus of the petitioners for challenging the selection. We are, thus, in agreement with the view recorded by learned Single Judge, in this regard, in the judgment and order under appeal.
Next finding recorded by learned Single Judge which has been sought to be impeached herein is in relation to the permissibility of rounding off percentage of marks for the purpose of determining the candidates eligible for the main written examination based on the marks secured in the preliminary examination.
In respect of the aforesaid, it has been forcefully argued by some of the appellants that evaluation of preliminary test cannot be put on the same pedestal as that of written examination and the group discussion for the reason that evaluation of preliminary written examination is done only for the purpose of adjudging eligibility of the candidates to allow them to participate in the written examination and in the further process of selection, whereas the marks evaluated in the written examination and the group discussion are for the purpose of preparation of final merit-list. It has, thus, been contended that learned Single Judge in his judgment and order under appeal has erred in law by equating the preliminary examination, which is conducted only for the purpose of preparing further eligibility list permitting the candidates to participate in the further process of the selection with the main written examination, which is held for the purpose of preparing final select list. Submission is that preliminary test is qualifying in nature and further that in order to achieve the target of ratio of 1:3 for participating in the group discussion in terms of Rule 15(g) of the Service Rules, 2008, it was prescribed that the candidates for further participation in physical efficiency test shall be taken in the ratio of 1:18. It has been contended that such prescription was with a view to achieve the object of the selection and further that the same cannot be said to cause any prejudice to any candidate at that stage for the reason that main process of selection i.e. main written examination and group discussion on the basis of which final merit list is prepared, did not start at that stage. It has been, thus, submitted that for having maximum possible number upto the prescriptions made by the recruitment board, the rounding off was resorted to and since it was taken recourse to uniformly and was applied to all candidates, hence it can be said that any prejudice was caused to any candidate by rounding off.
The aforesaid submission made on behalf of some of the appellants herein is to be tested on the basis of the provisions contained in the Service Rules, 2008. Rule 15(d) of the Service Rules prescribes for a preliminary written test, according to which the candidates declared successful in the physical standard test are required to appear in a preliminary test of qualifying nature carrying 200 marks which shall comprise of three sections and that candidates who secure minimum 50% marks shall be declared successful. Thus, according to Rule 15(d) of the Service Rules, 2008, out of 200 marks prescribed for preliminary written examination, a candidate is required to secure minimum 50% to be eligible for appearing in the next ladder of selection. Clause 2.5 of the Instructions Manual also provides that 50% marks will be the bench mark for qualifying the preliminary written examination and that maximum number of successful candidates to the extent of 18 times the number of vacancies shall be eligible for appearing in the physical efficiency test on the basis of merit to be prepared based on the marks obtained in the preliminary written examination. When the provisions contained in the Instructions Manual and the Service Rules, 2008 are compared, what transpires is that the provision of the Service Rules and Instructions Manual are akin to each other. Neither the rules nor the instructions prescribe any provision for rounding off marks. Learned Single Judge while discussing the arguments made in this regard by the learned counsel for the parties has analyzed the provisions contained in Service Rules and the Instructions Manual, specially Rule 15(d) of the Service Rules, 2008 and Clause 2.5 of the Instructions Manual and has reached to the conclusion that the recruitment board is not conferred with any authority or power to round off marks and hence, any such recourse taken by the Recruitment Board would be contrary to the Service Rules which are statutory in nature and also to the Instructions Manual.
The justification offered by the learned counsel representing the State and some of the appellants herein that rounding off was resorted to in order to achieve the target of ratio of 1:3 for participation in the further process of selection and that recruitment board did so in order to maintain the ratio of 1:18 as prescribed in Clause 2.5 of the Instructions Manual, in our opinion, does not hold good for the reason that it would be against the statutory Service Rules, 2008. It is noticeable that Service Rules, 2008 do not permit rounding off, neither do the Service Rules, 2008 confer any authority or power on the Recruitment Board to do so.
So far as submission made by some of the appellants that the rounding off could not have been permitted at the time of evaluating the main written examination and the group discussion for the reason that the final merit list is based on these two stages of selection, however, such rounding off would be permissible while evaluation of preliminary written examination as the same is qualifying in nature, is concerned, we may refer to the judgments in the case of West Bengal Joint Entrance Examination Board and others Vs. Sarit Charaborty and others, reported in (2015) 13 SCC 668, Orissa Public Service Commission and others Vs. Rupashree Chowdhary and another, reported in (2011) 8 SCC 108, Bhanu Pratap Vs. State of Haryana and others, reported in (2011) 15 SCC 304. In all these cases, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in absence of any power provided in the Rules permitting such rounding off so as to bring up a candidate to minimum requirement, rounding off would not be permissible as the same would amount to dilution or amendment to such Rules. Submission made in this regard that such rounding off marks will attract requisite number of candidates to maintain the ratio as prescribed in the Instructions Manual is not appealing in absence of any such prescription in Service Rules which are statutory in nature.
The contention that since the preliminary written examination was only of qualifying nature and the writ petitioners had already qualified and were, thus, not prejudiced, cannot be accepted for the reason that if certain act is impermissible in law (as in the present case Service Rules do not permit rounding off), such an action cannot be approved on any count. The Recruitment Board by rounding off marks has acted in derogation of the statutory Service Rules. In fact such an action has resulted in allowing ineligible candidates to appear in the next stages of selection process, out of whom many are said to have been finally selected. Thus, as a result of the Recruitment Board having resorted to rounding off, ineligible candidates were allowed to participate in the further selection process which cannot be the intention of the law. Suitability of a candidate for appointment has to be judged only amongst the eligible candidates and not amongst ineligible candidates.
In the instant case, even ineligible candidates have been permitted to participate in the selection, inasmuch as Rule 15(d) of the Service Rules in unambiguous terms provides that the candidates who secure minimum 50% in the preliminary written test shall be declared successful, however, the candidates securing less than 50% have also been declared successful which is contrary to the prescription contained in Rule 15(d). Violation of any statutory prescription, thus, expressly vitiates the process of selection. By taking recourse to rounding off, the Recruitment Board has violated Rule 15(d) of the Service Rules, 2008. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that the selection process got vitiated on account of this score alone. We, thus, do not have any reason to take a view different from the one taken by the learned Single Judge that rounding off percentage of marks secured in the preliminary written examination was not permissible.
Another issue which arose and has been considered by learned Single Judge in his judgment and order under appeal is in relation to the manner in which rule of horizontal reservation for special categories, such as, women, dependents of freedom fighters and ex-servicemen has been applied in the selection which was under challenge in the writ petitions. It was contended on behalf of the writ petitioners that the Recruitment Board had applied the rule of horizontal reservation, which has resulted in putting all the candidates selected on the basis of horizontal reservation in the open category and that none of them were placed in the reserved categories which was in violation of section 3(3) of U.P. Public Services (Reservation of Dependents of Freedom Fighter, Physically Handicapped and Ex-servicemen) Act, 1993. It was, thus, contended that such application of horizontal reservation is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India as also the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India and others, reported in [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217].
The aforesaid issue has already been considered by this Court in the case of Ashish Kumar Pandey and other vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ-A No.37599 of 2015, wherein it has been held that the process resorted to by the Recruitment Board by which horizontal reservation has been applied during selection in question is illegal and the selection has been quashed on the said ground alone. The judgment delivered by learned Single Judge in the case of Ashish Kumar Pandey (supra) has been upheld by the Division Bench on the aforesaid ground.
Countering the said argument, it has been contended by the learned counsel representing the State that for applying horizontal reservation amongst the unreserved category seats, the reservation was required to be first saturated before filling the vacancies reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes for the reason that in case horizontal reservation was not applied in this fashion, then the same would have resulted in non selection of the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes securing higher marks than the marks obtained by the unreserved categories candidates eligible for horizontal reservation. It has been argued on behalf of the State that the candidates declared successful on the basis of horizontal reservation were first put in the unreserved category and as their percentage was less than the maximum permissible limit under the said category, hence, all such candidates were included in the select list of unreserved category. It has further been submitted that out of 740 posts reserved for women, 370 posts belong to open/unreserved category, 165 posts belong to Scheduled Castes category, 15 posts belong to Scheduled Tribes category and 200 posts belong to Other Backward Class category.
As observed above, the aforesaid arguments made by the learned counsel representing the State has already been tested and considered by this Court in the case of Ashish Kumar Pandey (supra), validity of which has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court. In the case of Ashish Kumar Pandey (supra) it has been held that application of horizontal reservation in the selection in question has been made in contravention of the Act, 1993. Learned Single Judge in his judgment and order under appeal has relied upon the following observation made by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ashish Kumar Pandey (supra).
"It was, therefore, mandated that upon adjustment/accommodation if the special category candidate belonging to OBC category scored higher marks than his/her counterpart adjusted in open category, cannot be shifted to open category. Shifting would tantamount to vertical reservation which is impermissible and alien to the concept of horizontal reservation. Horizontal reservation cuts across vertical reservation, therefore, there is no concept of 'merit' while making adjustment/accommodation."
Learned Single Judge in the judgment and order under appeal has also quoted the relevant extract of the judgment of the Division Bench in special appeal which arose out of the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge in the case of Ashish Kumar Pandey (supra). The Division Bench in the Special Appeal has observed as under:
"While applying the principle of Horizontal Reservation, category has a role to play as at the point of time when Horizontal Reservation is to be pressed, then based on merit candidates in question are to be adjusted in their respective category and the male candidates, who are at the bottom of the list as per the merit, will have to make place for women candidate. A candidate, who has proceeded to make an application for the purposes of Horizontal Reservation under the OBC/SC/ST category, cannot be permitted to change his/her category, whereas in Vertical Reservation once your are selected, on merit, such a change is permissible by operation of law and in view of this, once such is the factual situation that is so emerging that all the candidates once they have specified their category in reference of Special Reservation, then they have to be adjusted in their respective categories and the reserve category candidate cannot ask for placement against open category by claiming that they have higher merit, inasmuch as, only in the matter of Vertical Reservation, merit has a role to play wherein the list is finalized but at the point of time when for providing Horizontal Reservation adjustment is to be made, then various adjustments is required to be done as per the formula that has been approved and ratified by the Apex Court that in the matter of horizontal reservation, adjustment would be made by making appropriate placement in appropriate categories. Apex Court was conscious of this fact, that such a provision may be subjected to misuse and accordingly, position was sought to be clarified by giving examples and then providing that if horizontal reservation is not satisfied, the requisite number of special reservation candidate has to be taken and accommodated/adjusted against their respective social reservation categories. Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of U.P. Act No.4 of 1993 provides for horizontal reservation to be applied accordingly, Application of horizontal reservation in this prescribed manner maintains the merit of special reservation quota candidate alongwith their representation in service, in view of this, the Learned Single Judge is absolutely right at the point of time when he has proceeded to criticise the State Government for taking such a stand and for adhering to a procedure that was not at all prescribed in law and thus crossing the limit of reservation of 50%, in view of this, the order passed by Learned Single Judge does not deserve interference on this aspect of the matter."
On a careful analysis of the pleadings on record and consideration of the respective arguments made in this regard, what we find is that it is established that the Recruitment Board has wrongly applied horizontal reservation. In fact, the Recruitment Board appears to have applied horizontal reservation in a manner in which vertical reservation is applied whereby the reserved category candidates selected on the basis of horizontal reservation have been shifted to open category. Sub section 3 of section 3 of the Act, 1993 prescribes that a person selected against the vacancy reserved under sub section (1) is to be placed in the appropriate category to which he/she belongs. It also gives an example, where a selected person belongs to Schedules Castes category, he is to be placed in that quota by making the necessary adjustment and if he belongs to Other Backward Class category, he is to be placed in that quota by making requisite adjustment. Similarly, if such a candidate belongs to Schedule Tribes category, he is to be placed in that quota by making adjustment. It further provides that if a candidate belongs to open competition category, he is to be placed in that category by making necessary adjustments.
Sub section 3 of section 3 of the Act, 1993 is quoted herein below:-
3(3)."The persons selected against the vacancies reserved under sub-section (1) shall be placed in the appropriate categories to which they belong. For example, if a selected person belongs to Scheduled Castes category he will be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustments; if he belongs to other Backward Classes of citizens category, he will be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustments. If be belongs to Scheduled Tribes category, he will be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustment; if he belongs to (other Backward Classes of Citizens), category, he will be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustment. Similarly, if he belongs to open competition category he will be placed in that category by making necessary adjustments."
From a perusal of the aforequoted provision of section 3(3) of the Act, 1993 it is abundantly clear that horizontal reservation is to be applied for the dependents of freedom fighters and ex-servicemen by placing them in appropriate categories to which they belong i.e. Other Backward Class category, Scheduled Castes category, Scheduled Tribes category and general category.
Similarly, reservation for women is also applied horizontally in terms of the Government Orders dated 26.02.1999 and 09.01.2007. The aforesaid provisions of the Government Orders dated 26.02.1999 and 09.01.2007 as also sub section 3 of section 3 of the Act, 1993 has been considered by this Court in the case of Ashish Kumar Pandey (supra), wherein it has been categorically held that the procedure adopted by the recruitment board was not at all as per prescription by law, which has resulted in crossing the limit of reservation of 50%. Learned Single Judge after discussing various pronouncements by the Court has concluded that the candidates selected on the basis of horizontal reservation could not be adjusted in the open category. The judgment and order under appeal, thus, directs that the recruitment board will have to apply horizontal reservation in the light of the observations made and directions given in the case of Ashish Kumar Pandey (supra).
Thus, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the aforesaid directions given by learned Single Judge in the judgment and order under appeal as admittedly, in terms of the provisions contained in section 3(3) of the Act, 1993, horizontal reservation should not result in adjustment of all the candidates selected on the basis of horizontal reservation against the open category seats, otherwise the same would be clearly violative of sub section 3 of section 3 of the Act, 1993.
Learned Single Judge in the judgment and order under appeal has found the selection to be vitiated on yet another ground i.e violation of rule 15(f) of Service Rules, 2008, according to which, on the basis of main written examination, number of candidates to be selected has to be three times the number of vacancies for permitting such candidates to be called for and participate in group discussion. It is not in dispute that total number of vacancies was 4010 and thus in terms of the provisions contained in 15 (f) of the Service Rules, 2008, the total number of candidates, who were required to be selected on the basis of evaluation of written examination would be 12030 for allowing them to participate in group discussion. In the selection, which was under challenge before learned Single Judge, as against 12030 candidates, total number of candidates who were declared successful and were called for and subjected to group discussion was 14243. Thus, 2213 candidates in excess were called for group discussion and it was thus, contended by the writ petitioners that the same was violative of rule 15(f) of the Service Rules, 2008.
In respect of the aforesaid issue, it has been contended by some of the appellants that though the prescription of ratio 1:3 for the purpose of group discussion is the minimum but rule 15(f) of the Service Rules, 2008 does not prescribe the maximum ratio and further that the said rule does not provide that more than three times the number of vacancies can not be the number of candidates, who will be called for group discussion. It has, thus, been argued that while determining the number of candidates to be allowed to participate in the group discussion, regard has to be given to rule of reservation as prescribed in rule 6 of the Service Rules, 2008. It has also been contended that requirement of calling of number of candidates equal to three times the number of all vacancies for group discussion, is not mandatory, rather it is directory. Further submission made in this regard is that as to whether a provision is directly or mandatory has to be determined on the basis of (i) intent of legislation, (ii) language and phraseology of legislation and (iii) nature, design and consequences of legislation.
To fortify the said arguments, reliance has been placed on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of May George vs. Special Tahsildar and others, reported in [(2010) 13 SCC 98, State represented by Inspector of Police, Chennai vs. N.S. Gnaneswaran, reported in [(2013) 3 SCC 594] and in the case of Kailash vs. Nankhu and others, reported in [(2005) 4 SCC 480]. It has also been contended that since some of the writ petitioners are themselves beneficiary of exceeding the ratio of 1:3, therefore, on that ground they cannot challenge the selection.
Learned counsel representing the State has sought to offer an explanation for transgressing the ratio of 1:3. It has been submitted that in case the number of candidates only three times the number of vacancies were called then the last candidate belonging to Other Backward Class category, who had secured 294.6667 marks would not have been called for group discussion, though the marks secured by the last open category candidate was only 208.25. Submission, thus, is that O.B.C. category candidates even having secured higher marks, could not have been called for participation in the group discussion, which would have rendered the process unreasonable since the reserved category candidates are also to compete for general category posts.
Rule 15 (f) of the Service Rules, 2008 prescribes that a candidate who is declared successful in Physical Efficiency Test shall be required to appear in the main written examination carrying 400 marks in the subjects detailed therein. It further categorically prescribes that a candidate, who fails to obtain minimum 50% marks in each subject shall not be eligible for recruitment. Further prescription in the rule is that the Recruitment Board shall prepare a list of successful candidates on the basis of marks secured in the main written examination having regard to the need for securing due representation of the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and others under Rule 6. It further provides that number of candidates to be selected in the main written examination shall be three times the number of vacancies.
Rule 6 of Service Rules, 2008 provides for reservation to be provided to the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Class category candidates and also to the Dependents of Freedom-Fighters and Ex-Servicemen as per the provisions of Reservation Act, 1994 and the Act, 1993. A submission was made on behalf of the petitioners that reservation will apply only at the stage of preparation of tentative select list under rule 15(h) and not at the stage of preparing the final select list based on main written examination. The said contention has rightly been found to be incorrect and thus not tenable by the learned Single Judge for the reason that rule 15(f) makes it clear that the rule of reservation is to be applied at the stage of preparing the select list to be prepared on the basis of marks secured in the main written examination. The finding given by learned Single Judge in this regard does not call for any reversal for the reason that the language applied in rule 15(f) is plain, clear and simple which mandates preparation of list of successful candidates on the basis of marks obtained by them in the main written examination. Any argument contrary to the said rule, as advanced by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners is not acceptable. Learned Single Judge while rendering the judgment under appeal has held that occurrence of the words "three times the number of vacancies" in rule 15(f) of the Service Rules, 2008 by itself does not mean that reservation was not to be applied at that stage. It has further been held by learned Single Judge that rule 15(f) does not contain any prohibition for break up of the vacancies category-wise and calculating the candidates three time such vacancies, subject to application of section 3(6) of the Reservation Act, 1994. It has further been held by learned Single Judge that had this been done there would not have been any occasion to select the candidates in excess of three times the number of vacancies and sufficient number of candidates would have been available for all categories.
Submission of learned counsel appearing for some of the appellants that prescription of the ratio of 1:3 in rule 15(f) is the minimum but the rule does not prescribe maximum ratio and hence, it was permissible for the Recruitment Board to have called for more candidates than three times the number of vacancies, in our opinion, is not tenable. It is true that rule 15(f) of Service Rules, 2008 does not use the word "maximum", however, it is to be noticed that it also does not use the word "minimum". It plainly prescribes that the number of candidates to be selected in the main written examination shall be "three times the number of vacancies".
The interpretation sought to be given by the learned counsel appearing for some of the appellants to the prescription available in Rule 15(f) of the Service Rules, 2008 of calling the candidates three time of number of vacancies would mean reading the rule beyond what it prescribes. The language is very clear which prescribes that number of candidates shall be "three times the number of vacancies". Rule neither uses the word "minimum" nor does it use the word "maximum". In such a situation to argue that since the rule does not prescribe the maximum ratio hence, the number of candidates to be called for group discussion may exceed three times the number of vacancies, is not acceptable and deserves to be rejected.
Regarding inclusion of candidates, who had used whitener in the O.M.R. sheets, no more discussion by us in this case is required as the issue has been already concluded by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered on 19.01.2016 in Civil Appeal Nos.587-588 of 2016 and accordingly we hold that such candidates, who have been found to have used whitener would be eligible for consideration in terms of the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
In respect of the issue relating to reserved category candidates, who were called for selection under the reserved category based on their merit without applying the reservation and its effect on the application of overall reservation to the selection in question, submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners before the learned Single Judge have not been found favour in the judgment under appeal herein.
It was contended on behalf of the writ petitioners that in terms of section 3(6) of the Reservation Act, 1994, in case a candidate applies for selection, he needs to mention his category and such reserved category confers various privileges upon the candidates which ultimately results in dislodging "level playing field" for selection. Further that number of candidates belonging to Other Backward Class category, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes have been selected against unreserved seats. The aforesaid submission raised by the writ petitioners, which have been asserted by some of the appellants in these special appeals as well, is contrary to the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Sabbarwal vs. State of Punjab, reported in [(1995) 2 SCC 745]. In the said case, it has been held, without any ambiguity, that reserved category candidates selected against the posts on merit are not to be counted against reserved posts. If the submission made by the writ petitioners, who are appellants in some of the special appeals as well, is accepted, the same would, in fact, amount to providing reservation to the unreserved/general category candidates which is not provided for in any law. We, thus, agree with the findings recorded by learned Single Judge on the said issue.
The writ petitioners had also challenged clause 4 of the Government Order dated 25.03.1994 on the ground that the said provision amounts to reverse discrimination in respect of general category candidates for the reason that "their seats" are filled in by the candidates belonging to reserved category candidates and hence it is violative of the equality clause enshrined in Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India, apart from being violative of Article 14. It was contended in this regard that once a candidate has taken benefit of being reserved category candidate at the entry point, he could not be selected under the unreserved category and that he has to compete only amongst the reserved category candidates in the selection and by applying clause 4 of the Government Order dated 25.03.1994 "the level playing field" gets disturbed.
The aforesaid issue is no more res integra in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Jitendra Kumar Singh and another vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in [(2010) 3 SCC 119], however, it has been argued that the said judgment is based on Government Order dated 25.03.1994 though vires of the said Government Order was not under challenge before Hon'ble Supreme Court and since now the vires has been challenged by the writ petitioners, therefore, the judgment in the case of Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra) would have no application. It has further been submitted that once the benefit of age relaxation and concession as prescribed in section 8 of the Reservation Act, 1994 is availed of and if a candidate applies as reserved category candidate, then he cannot be considered for appointment against an unreserved post for the same would be contrary to the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney (supra). Accordingly, it has been argued that such a course, if adopted in a selection, would run contrary to the aims and and object of Reservation Act as relaxation in age etc. is also a kind of reservation and hence, once a person avails the benefit of reservation of any kind, he cannot be given the benefit of being selected under the unreserved category.
Clause 4 of the Government Order dated 25.03.1994 is extracted herein below:-
"4.;fn vkjf{kr Js.kh ls lacaf/kr dksbZ O;fDr ;ksX;rk ds vk/kkj ij [kqyh izfr;ksfxrk esa lkekU; vH;fFkZ;ksa ds lkFk p;fur gksrk gS rks mls vkjf{kr fjfDr;ksa ds izfr lek;ksftr ugha fd;k tk,xk vFkkZr mls vukjf{kr fjfDr;ksa ds izfr lek;ksftr ekuk tk,xk] Hkys ghs mlus vkjf{kr oxZ ds vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vuqeU; fdlh lqfo/kk ;k NwV ¼;Fkk vk;q lhek esa NwV vkfn½ dk miHkksx fd;k gksA"
Section 3 (6) of the Reservation Act, 1994 provides that in case any reserved category candidate gets selected while competing with the open category candidates in an open competition, such a candidate shall not be adjusted against reserved category seats. Section 8 of the Reservation Act, 1994 provides that the State Government by an order may prescribe for certain concessions in relation to fee for a competitive examination or interview and also in relation to maximum age limit. It appears that the Government Order dated 23.03.1994 has been issued in terms of the provisions contained in Section 8 of the Reservation Act, 1994.
The basic premise of asserting that the Government Order dated 25.03.1994 is ultra vires under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India, as argued by the writ petitioners, is that it amounts to reverse discrimination in respect of general category candidates as "their seats" are being filled in by the candidates belonging to reserved category, who had already obtained certain concessions and age relaxation. Scheme of Reservation Act, 1994 reveals that there are no seats reserved for the general/open category candidates, in fact, the Reservation Act has been enacted by the State Legislature with a view to provide benefit of reservation to the reserved category candidates and it does not reserve any seat for unreserved/open category candidates. If the submission of learned counsel representing the writ petitioners in this regard is accepted, as already observed above, the same would result in providing reservation to open/general category candidates, which cannot be and is not the intention of the Legislature. There is no law prescribing reservation for general category candidates in public employment and as such there does not arise any question of the reserved category candidates occupying or being selected against "their seats". Since there is no concept of providing reservation to open category or general category candidates, there cannot be any concept of "their seats" for open/general candidates.
Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra) has already considered the question whether the reserved category candidates who had availed the relaxation under section 8 of the Reservation Act, 1994 would also be entitled for the benefit of section 3(6) of the said Act. The judgment in the case of Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra) is not based only on the Government Order dated 25.03.1994, rather it is based on the provisions contained in the Reservation Act, 1994. The question of "level playing field" being disturbed can also be answered on the basis of observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra) wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court have opined that concessions within section 8 of the Reservation Act, 1994 do not amount to any concession or relaxation in the standards prescribed for qualifying for the written examination. Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that relaxation in age limit is merely to enable the reserved category candidates to compete with the general category candidates, all other things being equal. It has categorically been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case that such relaxation cannot be permitted to deprive a reserved category candidate of his right of being considered as general category candidate on the basis of his merit vis a vis merit of the general category candidates in a competitive examination. In para 75 of the said judgment in the case of Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"75. In our opinion, the relaxation in age does not in any manner upset the "level playing field". It is not possible to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that relaxation in age or the concession in fee would in any manner be infringement of Article 16 (1) of the Constitution of India. These concessions are provisions pertaining to the eligibility of a candidate to appear in the competitive examination. At the time when the concessions are availed, the open competition has not commenced. It commences when all the candidates who fulfill the eligibility conditions, namely, qualifications, age, preliminary written test and physical test are permitted to sit in the main written examination. With age relaxation and the fee concession, the reserved candidates are merely brought within the zone of consideration, so that they can participate in the open competition on merit. Once the candidate participates in the written examination, it is immaterial as to which category, the candidate belongs. All the candidates to be declared eligible had participated in the Preliminary Test as also in the Physical Test. It is only thereafter that successful candidates have been permitted to participate in the open competition".
Thus, the contention that relaxation in age or concession in fee coupled with the benefit of Section 3(6) of the Reservation Act, 1994 to the reserved category candidates would infringe Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India has not been accepted by Hon'ble Supreme Court giving the reason that such relaxations pertain to eligibility of candidates to appear in the competitive examination and at the time when the concessions are availed, the open competition has not begun which commences when the candidates fulfilling the eligibility conditions are permitted to take part in the main examination.
Para 76 of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra) is extracted herein in below:-
"76. Mr. Rao had suggested that Section 3 (6) ensures that there is a level playing field in open competition. However, Section 8 lowers the level playing field, by providing concessions in respect of fees for any competitive examination or interview and relaxation in upper age limit. We are unable to accept the aforesaid submission. Section 3 (6) is clear and unambiguous. It clearly provides that a reserved category candidate who gets selected on the basis of merit in open competition with general category candidates shall not be adjusted against the reserved vacancies. Section 3(1), 3(6) and Section 8 are inter-connected. Expression "open competition" in Section 3 (6) clearly provides that all eligible candidates have to be assessed on the same criteria".
Thus, Hon'ble Supreme Court has repelled the argument that section 8 of the Reservation Act, 1994 disturbs the "level playing field" by providing concessions in respect of fee and relaxation in upper age limit. The said submission has thus, not been accepted. Since all the arguments raised for declaring clause 4 of the Government Order dated 25.03.1994 ultra vires Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India have been considered and negatived by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra), the submission made in this regard in this case also fails. We thus, reiterate the finding recorded by learned Single Judge in respect of this issue.
Certain questions/answers being wrong was also an issue which was raised and has been duly considered and answered by learned Single Judge and in view of the elaborate discussions made therein, we do not find the findings recorded by learned Single Judge to be worth being upset. The directions have accordingly been issued by learned Single Judge to the Recruitment Board to revisit the said issue and take appropriate remedial action in accordance with the past practice in consonance with the law.
We reiterate the said directions.
Lastly, some of the appellants have argued that since no prejudice is being caused to the writ petitioners by the deviations from the rules and infractions thereof, no interference in the selection in question was called for. It has also been argued that some of the writ petitioners themselves are beneficiary of the action on the part of the Recruitment Board resulting in exceeding 1:3 ratio for calling the candidates for participating in group discussion, as such challenge made to the selection is not permissible.
What needs to be emphasized in this regard is that the selection in question has been found to be vitiated on account of various factors such as the manner in which horizontal reservation has been incorrectly applied, calling for candidates in excess of three times the number of vacancies for group discussion being violative of rule 15(f) of the Service Rules, rounding off marks in violation of rule 15(d) of the Service Rules, which resulted in permitting ineligible candidates to participate in the main written examination, hence, absence of personal prejudice is not relevant as compared to violations of statutory prescriptions contained in the Service Rules for adjudicating the validity of the selection. The manner in which the selection in question has been conducted has been found to be violative of statutory service rules which makes us to observe that the submissions made by some of the appellants in this regard merit rejection.
In view of the discussions made and reasons given above, we are not persuaded to be in agreement with the submissions advanced for upholding the selection. The judgment and order under appeal rendered by learned Single Judge, thus, does not warrant any interference.
The special appeals are hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- April 6, 2017 Sanjay/Akhilesh [Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.] [Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.]