Read Time: 05 minutes

The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed pleas challenging the decision of the High Court administration to not provide 10% EWS category quota for General Category candidates in the Direct Recruitment process for Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service, 2020.

The bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Ajai Tyagi noted that the petitioners, candidates for the UPHJS Exam- 2020, had not challenged the Rules as notified for the recruitment process rather they had sought direction to the High Court Administration to amend the already issued advertisement/notification.

Court said, “Once the advertisement is out, it would not be just and proper for the authorities to insert any new clause… we cannot direct the High Court by way of mandamus to provide reservation benefit to the Economically Weaker Sections category candidates for taking the examination this year. However, we request the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad to adopt the same, if not adopted.”

It was petitioners’ main contention that since the 103rd Amendment of Constitution of India, mandates 10% reservation to be provided to the Economically Weaker Sections candidates, under Article 16(6) which became effective in January 2019, therefore omission of the same in the UPHJS notification issued on January 12, 2021 is be illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and error of law.

However, the counsel for the High Court Administration apprised the Court that the Constitutional Amendment is proposed to be adopted by the High Court and the same is under consideration also but it will not be applicable this year because the advertisement for the UPHJS, 2020 had already been issued before such consideration commenced.

Pointing out the facts that the petitioners had appeared in the Preliminary Examination of the UPHJS, 2020 as general category candidate which they did not clear, Court said,

“We cannot issue a writ of mandamus where the petitioner has appeared in preliminary examination as general category candidate with open eyes. It is admitted by the petitioner that he never challenged the rules of Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Services. It is also the admission of petitioner that he has not cleared the preliminary examination.”

Further, Court opined that the advertisement issued by the High Court Administration could not be termed as illegal or arbitrary and against the mandate of the Constitution of India. “It cannot be said that petitioner is discriminated,” Court said.

Therefore, stating that “We have our sympathy with the candidates” Court held that it cannot grant a mandamus to the petitioner to reconsider where the rules are silent. Accordingly, both the petitions were dismissed.

Case Title: Sandeep Mittal v. State of U.P. and Another and connected matter