In a special appeal filed before the Allahabad High Court to challenge a judgment and order dated 01-05-2026, passed in a writ petition, a Division Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla stayed Clause 10 of the advertisement issued by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission and held that the appellants had approached the court at the correct time, i.e., before the commencement of the selection process.
In the said writ petition, it was asserted that, as per an advertisement by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission dated 22-12-2025, the selection process for the post in question was to be conducted in two stages: a written examination and an interview. It was contended that Clause 10 specifically provided for the adjustment of candidates of reserved categories against unreserved vacancies at the stage of final selection, subject to the condition that such candidates had not availed any concession or relaxation in the qualifying standards at the stage of the preliminary examination. By the impugned order, this Court held that the petition was premature because the selection process had not commenced and dismissed it.
The Court found the reasoning given in the impugned order to be erroneous in law. It was stated that it was obvious that the recruitment would be held in terms of the stipulation contained in the office order dated 09-01-2020 and the said advertisement, and that there could be no presumption that the Commission would hold the selection contrary to its own decision. Hence, the Court opined that the appellants had approached the court at the right time, before the selections had actually commenced, to avoid future complications.
Though the Court wished to dispose of the appeal and remand the matter to the writ court for consideration on merits, the Commission stated that it would like to file a counter-affidavit, which led the Court to keep the matter pending.
The Court stated that the condition imposed was against the constitutional principles and said that even though the preliminary examination is to shortlist candidates, if a reserved category candidate secures higher marks than the unreserved category based on the cut-off marks for the said category, but secures fewer marks than the cut-off for the reserved category, the reserved category candidate would not be treated as unreserved category candidate, meaning that he would not be permitted to appear in the main examination.
The Court held that, prima facie, this would lead to a violation of rights under Article 16(1) and found it difficult to accept that such a person, even at the preliminary stage, would not be considered an unreserved category candidate and would be ousted from the further zone of consideration. The Court found it even more striking since an unreserved candidate having secured fewer marks in the same exam would be allowed to appear in the main examination.
Thus, the Court stayed the impugned condition in the advertisement as well as the decision dated 09-01-2020 till the next date of hearing.
The case has now been listed on 26-05-2026.
Appearances:
For Appellants – Navneet Yadav, Aahuti Agarwal, Abhishek Khare, Mohd. Yasir
For Respondents – CSC, Raj Kumar Upadhyaya
