# Rajat Maurya & Ors v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 356
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-25
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 8788 of 2025
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajat-maurya-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53927
- **Pages:** 24

## Text

_Characters 0–39,995 of 75,614. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39995 for what follows._

356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
पररचालक पद के मलए प्रेमित मकया। परन्तु क्षेत्रीय प्रबन्धक, मेरठ के
आदेशानुसार मदनांक ०९.०४.२०१९ के द्वारा यामचकाकताट के
शैमक्षक प्रमाण पत्रों की जााँच के उपरान्त जब वो फजी पाये गये तो
उसका मृतक आमश्रत मनयोजन का दावा मनरटत कर मदया गया।
यामचकाकताट ने उि आदेश मदनांक ०९.०४.२०१९ को आक्षेमपत
मकये मबना ही वतटमान यामचका के माध्यम से अनुकम्पा मनयोजन के
मलए अहट अभ्यमथटयों की सूची में अपना नाम समम्ममलत कराने की
प्राथटना की है, मजस पर उपरोि मवमधक बाधा के कारण मवचार नहीं
मकया जा सकता है। अतैः वतटमान यामचका का मनटतारण इस
मटप्पणी के साथ मकया जाता है मक यामचकाकताट उमचत मवमधक
उपचार के मलए टवतंत्र है।

२५. यमवचकम संख्यम ११३३७ िषा २०२५: वतटमान
प्रकरण में यामचकाकताट राजीव कुमार के मपता की मृत्यु सेवाकाल में
मदनांक १६.१०.२०१८ को हुई और भारी वाहन चलाने का चालन
अनुमप्त मदनांक २९.०७.२०१९ को मनगटत हुई। मनयमानुसार चालन
अनुमप्त के ५ विट बाद ही यामचकाकताट चालक पद के मलए अहट
होता है और क्योंमक जब अनुकम्पा मनयोजन का आवेदन पत्र
१२.१०.२०२३ को प्रेमित मकया तब चालक अनुमप्त की अहटता नहीं
रखता था इसमलए आक्षेमपत आदेश मदनांक १४.११.२०२३ द्वारा
उसका आवेदन पत्र पर पात्रता पूणट न करने के कारण उस पर अमग्रम
कायटवाही नहीं की गई मक संदमभटत पात्रता २८.०७.२०२४ को पूणट
होगी। अथाटत् यामचका के मपता की मृत्यु (१६.१०.२०१८) के ५
विट के बाद पात्रता पूणट होगी। अतैः न्यायालय का मत है मक
आक्षेमपत आदेश अनुकम्पा मनयोजन के मनयम के दृमष्गत ही पाररत
मकया गया है और जैसा पूवट में उकलेमखत मकया है मक चयन मनयमों
में कोई मशमथलता प्रदान नहीं की गयी है इसमलए आक्षेमपत आदेश
में हटतक्षेप नहीं मकया जा सकता। न्यायमहत में यामचका इस मटप्पणी
के साथ मनटताररत की जाती है मक उ.प्र.रा.स.प.मन. अगर चाहे तो
यामचकाकताट को पररचालक के पद के योजन के मलए पुनैः मवचार
कर ले, अगर वो पूणट पात्रता रखता हो। यामचकाकताट इस संदभट में
नवीन प्राथटना पत्र प्रेमित करने के मलए टवतंत्र है।

२६. यमवचकम संख्यम ९८२२ िषा २०२५: यामचकाकताट
रमवउकलाह अहमद का अनुकम्पा मनयोजन का आवेदन पररचालक
पद के मलए अपर प्रबन्धक मनदेशक के पत्रांक मदनांक
०१.०५.२०२५ द्वारा अहट पाया गया और उसका एक सप्ताह का
अवैतमनक प्रमशक्षण भी कराया गया परन्तु जब पुमलस सत्यापन के
दौरान यह जानकारी प्राप्त हुई मक यामचकाकताट के मवरूद्ध एक प्रथम
सूचना ररपोटट सं० १९३ विट २०२०, थाना मसधारी, मजला
आजमगढ में भारतीय दण्ड संमहता १८६० की धारा ४१९, ४२० व
४०६ के अन्तगटत दायर की गयी है तो उि पत्रांक मदनांक
०१.०५.२०२५ के अनुिम में अमग्रम कायटवाही नहीं की गयी और
यह मक यामचकाकताट ने इस सम्बन्ध में एक आवेदन पत्र
०२.०६.२०२५ को टपीड पोटट के माध्यम से प्रेमित मकया जो अभी
लमम्बत है। अतैः वतटमान यामचका इस मनदेश के साथ मनटताररत की
जाती है मक प्राथी अगर ३ सप्ताह के अंदर एक नवीन आवेदन क्षेत्रीय
प्रबन्धक उ.प्र.रा.स.प.मन. के कायाटलय में व्यमिगत रूप से सौंपता है
तो उि अमधकारी आवेदन पत्र का मनटतारण उच्चतम न्यायालय
द्वारा अितमर वसंह बनमर् भमरत सरकमर (२०१६) ८
एस.एस.सी. २०१६ के प्रकरण में पाररत मनणटय के दृमष्गत शीघ्रता
से करेगा। यामचका तद्नुसार मनटताररत की जाती है।

२७. यमवचकम संख्यम १२८८८ िषा २०२५: वतटमान
यामचकाकताट के प्रकरण के तथ्य यामचका ९८२२ विट २०२५ के
यामचकाकताट के समान है मक अनुकम्पा मनयुमि के मलए अहट होने के
व प्रमशक्षण के उपरान्त एक आपरामधक प्रकरण (मु.अ.सं.
०१२९/२०२५ मदनांक ०५.०५.२०२५ धारा ११५(२), ३५२,
३५१(३), ३३३ बी.एन.एस.) में याची का नाम आरोपी के रूप में
दजट होने के कारण अमग्रम कायटवाही रोक दी गयी है। अतैः यह
यामचका भी इस मनदेश के साथ मनटताररत की जाती है मक प्राथी
अगर ३ सप्ताह के अंदर एक नवीन आवेदन क्षेत्रीय प्रबन्धक
उ.प्र.रा.स.प.मन. के कायाटलय में व्यमिगत रूप से सौंपता है तो उि
अमधकारी आवेदन पत्र का मनटतारण उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा
अितमर वसंह बनमर् भमरत सरकमर (पूिा र्ें उवललवखत) के
प्रकरण में पाररत मनणटय के दृमष्गत शीघ्रता से करेगा। यामचका
तद्नुसार मनटताररत की जाती है।
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 356
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 8788 of 2025
&
Connected With Other Cases

Rajat Maurya & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Siddharth Khare, Sr. Advocate
9 All. Rajat Maurya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
357
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., M.N. Singh

Issue for Consideration
1. Criteria of preparation of list of 'suitable
candidates'
of
unreserved
category
in
preliminary examination to make them qualify
for final examination.
2. Entitlement of OBC candidates, who might
have scored better than unreserved category
candidates to be placed in the list of suitable
candidates falling in unreserved open category
to compete with the unreserved category
candidates in main examination.
3. How far granting of interim order by the
Supreme Court against the Judgment of Punjab
and Haryana High Court, can dilute the ratio laid
down in this Judgment?

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Constitution of India -
Article 14 and 16 - Right of equality -
Reservation
-
Quota
of
unreserved
category candidates vis-a-vis reserved
category candidates - Recruitment for the
post
of
Assistant
Engineer
-
Main
examination - List of suitable candidates
declared
qualified
in
preliminary
examination was prepared as per the ratio
of 1:12, instead as per the ratio of 1:15
provided
under
the
advertisement
-
Validity challenged - Entitlement of OBC
candidates who might have scored better
than unreserved category candidates to be
placed in the list of suitable candidates
falling in unreserved open category to
compete with the unreserved category
candidates in main examination also felt
into consideration:
Held : There could not be a quota of open
category candidates as unreserved category
quota to bar entry of reserved category
candidates even while they have scored better
marks to match or for better performance to the
general category candidate - A candidate may
have applied under reserved category but if he
is not benefited by any relaxation other than the
age and concession in fee at the preliminary
examination result, then he can always enter
unreserved category not only at the stage of
final selection but at the same time when
preliminary examination/screening test is held
which may be only to shortlist candidates to find
suitable candidates. [Paras 46 and 48]
Held further : The open category means open
and when it comes to be a matter of adequate
representation
qua
reserved
category
candidates, if a reserved category candidates
matching cut off marks of candidates of
unreserved category candidate, are permitted to
march to the unreserved category, then it will
be more a case of level playing field to invite all
equals to participate in open competition. One
must not forget that equality before law and
equal protection of laws means "likes to be
treated alike" and hence whoever competes
with the candidates of open category and falls
within the cutoff of that category as may be
prescribed, would constitute a class for limited
purposes to from suitable candidates' group
within the meaning of Article 14 of the
Constitution. Confining such a candidate to the
reserved category only for the reason that list
has
been
published
category-wise,
would
definitely amount to discrimination. [para 49]

(B) Jurisprudence - Precedent - Principle
of Stare decisis - Granting of interim order
by
the
Supreme
Court
against
the
Judgment of Punjab and Haryana High
Court, how far dilute the ratio laid down in
this Judgment :
Held : The judgment of Punjab and Haryana
High Court in the matter of Haryana Public
Service Commission v. Parmila and Another, of
course, has been stayed by Supreme Court but
this interim order cannot be taken to have
watered down or in any manner diluted the
legal position emerging out from the judgment
in the case of Deependra Yadav on principle of
stare decisis - So long as the judgment in the
case of Deependra Yadav stands, it would
amount to a settled legal position as a binding
precedent on same principle of stare decisis.
[Paras 44 and 45]

(C)
Interpretation
of
statute
-
Constitution of India - Article 14 -
Equality before law and Equal protection
of laws -Meaning:
Held : Equality before law and equal protection
of laws means 'likes to be treated alike'. [Para
49] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
358 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Saurav Yadav & Others v. State of U.P. &
Others, (2021) 4 SCC 542; Jitendra Kumar Singh
& Another v. State of U.P. & Another, (2010) 3
SCC 119; and Deependra Yadav & Others v.
State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC
724; Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1868 of
2023, Pushpendra Kumar Patel and others v.
High Court of Madhya Pradesh; SLP (C) 1868 of
2023 decided on 07.07.2023; Civil Writ Petition
No. 14279 of 2024; Gokala Ram v. The
Rajasthan High Court and others (Rajasthan
High Court); Andhra Pradesh Public Service
Commission v. Baloji Badhavath and others,
(2009) 5 SCC 1; Alok Kumar Pandit v. State of
Assam and others (2012) 13 SCC 516; Sanjeev
Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2007
(2) ADJ 150; Anushuchit Jati, Evam Jan Jati
Adhikari Karmchari Sangh (AJJAKS) v. M.P. High
Court of Madhya Pradesh and Others, decided
on 21.11.2024; U.P. Power Corporation Ltd and
Another v. Nitin Kumar and 9 Others being
Special Appeal No. 310 of 2015 decided on
19.5.2015. - referred to.

List of Acts
U.P. Direct Recruitment through Public Service
Commission Preliminary Examination Rules,
1986 - Rules 2(viii), 2(ix), 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4)
and 3(5); U.P. Public Services (Reservation for
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other
Backward Classes) Act, 1994 - Ss. 3(1), (5) and
(6).

List of Keywords
Selection; Preliminary examination; List of
suitable
candidates;
Final
examination;
Reservation; Minimum marks; Minimum qualifier
percentage of marks; Interview; Recruitment;
Unreserved category; Reserved category; Open
selection; Migration of of the reserved category
candidate to the unreserved category candidate;
Methodology;
General
category;
Adequate
representation; Arbitrary; Principle of fair play;
Open category; Competition; Efficiency test;
Principle of Stare decisis; Binding precedent;
Persuasive value; Grey area; Scheduled Caste;
Scheduled Tribes; Other Backward
Caste;
Economically Weaker Sections; Touchstone;
Principle of 'level playing field'; Common law
judgment;
Discrimination;
Arbitrariness;
Relaxtion; Age; Fee concession.

Case Arising From
Preparation of result of preliminary examination
held for the post of Assistant Engineer.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioners : Ashok Khare, Senior
Advocate, Himanshu Singh, Siddharth Khare
Advs. for the Respondeents : Anoop Trivedi,
Senior Advocate, Nipun Singh, Naman Agarwal,
Ritaj Vikram Singh, M. N. Singh, P.K. Srivastava

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Himanshu
Singh, learned Advocate holding brief of
Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for
the petitioners, Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Nipun
Singh, Sri Naman Agarwal and Sri Ritaj
Vikram
Singh,
learned
Advocates
appearing for the Uttar Pradesh Public
Service
Commission
and
Sri
P.K.
Srivastava,
learned
Additional
Chief
Standing Counsel for State of Uttar Pradesh
and other State respondents.

2. All these three petitions since raise
common question of law, they have been
heard simultaneously and are now being
decided by this common judgment.

3. The subject matter of controversy
arising in all these petitions relate to
preparation
of
result
of
preliminary
examination conducted by Uttar Pradesh
Public Service Commission (hereinafter
referred to as 'Commission') for the
purposes of selection and appointment
upon different categories of posts in the
Departments under the State, namely
Assistant Engineer (Civil/ Mechanical) and
likewise posts falling in Group-B, Grade-2
post of District Horticulture Officer/ Food
Processing Officer in the department of
Agriculture and Senior Technical Assistant,
Group - A post in different branches of
9 All. Rajat Maurya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
359
Chemistry/
Botany/
Agronomy/
Plant
Protection and Development. In all 604
posts were initially advertised in total 5
groups
by
the
Commission
vide
advertisement No. A-9/E-1/2024 dated
17.12.2024
inviting
applications
from
eligible candidates. Later on 5 posts were
added totalling to 609 posts. The petitioners
in these petitions have applied for the posts
of Civil/ Mechanical Engineer pursuant to
the advertisement and also some of the
petitioners have applied for Group-B posts
of
District
Horticulture
Officer/Food
Processing Officer and Group-A category
posts Senior Technical Assistants
in
different branches, Chemistry/ Botany/
Agronomy/
Plant
Protection
and
Development.

4. For the purpose of statement of
facts, legal pleas taken and reference made
to certain Rules that are applicable in
connection with the matter, writ petition in
the matter of Rajat Maurya & 41 others v.
State of U.P. & 6 Others being Writ - A
No. 8788 of 2025, is taken up as a leading
petition.

5. There is no quarrel as to number of
vacancies, the preliminary examination
(screen test) conducted by the Commission.
The dispute erupted only upon result being
published on 26.05.2025 qualifying only
7358 candidates against 609 vacancies
which according to the petitioners was not
in consonance with clause 11(8) of the
advertisement.

6. In order to appreciate the controversy
and before I deal with the arguments advanced
on behalf of rival parties, I consider it
appropriate to refer to the important clauses of
the advertisement and the U.P. Direct
Recruitment
through
Public
Service
Commission Preliminary Examination Rules,
1986 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'Rules,
1986') and the The Uttar Pradesh Public
Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward
Classes) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as
'Act, 1994'). Clauses 11(8), 11(13) and 11(14)
of the advertisement relevant for in the case,
are reproduced hereunder:

"11.
IMPORTANT
INSTRUCTIONS FOR CANDIDATES:-

(8). On the basis of the result of
Preliminary
Examination,
fifteen
times
candidates to the number of vacancies shall
be declared successful for the Main
Examination and three times candidates to
the number of vacancies shall be called for the
interview.

(13.
The
minimum
efficiency
standard for S.C. & S.T. candidates is fixed
35% i.e. the Candidates of these Categories
shall not be placed in the merit/select list if
they have secured less than 35% marks in the
Preliminary/Main examination. Similarly, the
minimum
efficiency
standard
for
the
candidates of other categories is fixed 40%
i.e. such candidates shall not be placed in the
merit/select list if they have secured less than
40%
marks
in
the
Preliminary/Main
examination. All such candidates who have
secured less marks than the marks of minimum
efficiency standard as fixed by the Commission
shall be treated disqualified.

(14). The candidates of reserved
categories will be adjusted against the
unreserved category in the final selection
only if he/she will not have availed any
benefit/concession in qualifying standard at
the
stage
of
Preliminary/
Main
Examination."

(emphasis added)
360 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. Upon reading clause 11(8) as
quoted above, it becomes clear that after
the preliminary examination is held, fifteen
times
candidates
qua
the
vacancies
advertised shall be declared/ placed in the
list of eligible candidates for the main
examination and three times of the
candidates qua the vacancies advertised
shall be called for the interview finally.

8. The minimum efficiency standard
for SC and ST category candidates is fixed
35% minimum marks and 40% minimum
marks for the OBC and unreserved
candidates vide clause 11(13).

9. Clause 11(14) which is a clause that
needed interpretation and is in issue, it is
provided
that
the
reserved
category
candidates
will
be
adjusted
against
unreserved category at the stage of final
selection, provided such category candidate
has not availed any benefit/ concession in
qualifying
standard
at
the
stage
of
preliminary examination.

10. The relevant rules 2(viii), 2(ix),
3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) & 3(5) of the Rules,
1986 are reproduced hereunder:

"2.
Definitions.--(i)
"Commission
means
Public
Service
Commission Uttar Pradesh.

(viii)
"Suitable
candidates"
means
candidate
securing
minimum
number of marks as may be fixed by
Commission in its discretion at Preliminary
Examination thereby enabling him to
appear in the main examination or
interview as the case may be;

(iv)
"Main
Examination
or
Interview" means the examination or
interview as per relevant Service rules and
Government orders.

3.
Holding
of
preliminary
examination.

(1) Notwithstanding anything to
the contrary contained in relevant service
rules or Government orders regarding
recruitment, the Commission may, with the
prior approval of Government hold
preliminary examination for selection of
suitable candidates for admission to main
examination or interview, as the case may
be.

(2)
Where
a
preliminary
examination is held only such candidates
as qualify in the preliminary examination
will be entitled for admission to Main
Examination or Interview, as the case may
be.

(3) The marks obtained in the
preliminary examination will not be
counted for determining the final orders
of merit.

(4) (i) Preliminary examination
will consist of two question papers of two
hours' duration each in cases where it is to
be followed by main examination. Out of
the two question papers one will be the
compulsory paper of General Knowledge/
General Studies while the other will be of
one of the subjects which may be offered by
the candidates out of the optional subjects
allowed for the Main Examination of that
Service. In case there be no optional
subjects allowed for the Main Examination,
the second subject to be offered may be
prescribed by the Commission in its
discretion from amongst the compulsory
subjects allowed for the examination.
9 All. Rajat Maurya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
361

(ii) In cases where selection by
interview
alone
is
prescribed
the
preliminary examination will be of one
paper of two hours duration in such
subjects as may be prescribed by the
Commission in its discretion covering
mainly questions on General Knowledge,
General Studies and subjects relevant to
the nature of job of the post.

(5) Question papers will be set in
the
language
allowed
for
main
Examination and in English and Hindi in
cases where selection by interview is
prescribed
in
Service
rules
and
Government orders.

(6) The Preliminary Examination
shall be held at places and on dates and
time as is fixed by Commission."

(emphasis added)

11. From a bare reading of the
aforesaid provisions, it comes out that a
candidate who qualifies the preliminary
examination
by
obtaining
minimum
qualifier percentage of marks as may be
fixed under the advertisement, is termed as
"Suitable
Candidate"
and
main
examination and interview are referable to
the relevant service rules which provide for
selection through written examination or
walk-in-interview. There is no quarrel as to
the conduct of main examination and
interview for the purposes of recruitment
against the vacancies advertised under the
relevant departmental service rules. Rule 3
of
the
Rules,
1986
authorizes
the
Commission
to
hold
preliminary
examination to shortlist candidates for
admission to main examination and/ or
interview, as the case may be, with the
prior approval of the Government and in
the event preliminary examination is held, a
candidate who qualifies, shall be a suitable
candidate to appear in main examination or
interview as the departmental service rules
may provide. Rules further provide that
preliminary examination is only qualifying
examination for a candidate to become
'suitable candidate' for the purposes of
main examination or interview as the case
may be and the marks obtained and the
merit
secured
in
such
preliminary
examination will have no bearing as to the
final merit to be determined in the main
examination and/ or interview. Rule 3(iv)
provides for question papers and the
duration in terms of hours in the event it is
to be followed by main examination and
such papers will consist of General
Knowledge and General Studies and also
one of the optional subjects as the
Commission may prescribe with the
concurrence of the State Government. The
ratio of marks is also prescribed under the
relevant rule 4. The rules further provide
for language of the paper to be the same i.e.
prescribed/ allowed for main examination
and will be in English and Hindi in the
event preliminary test is followed by
interview under the relevant service rules
or the Government Orders. The rules also
provide
for
holding
preliminary
examination at place and time at the
discretion of the Commission.

12. Now coming to reservation Act,
1994, I find rule 3(1), (5) and (6) to be
relevant for the purposes of resolving the
issue involved in the present case and are
accordingly reproduced hereunder:

3. Reservation in favour of
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
other backward Classes.--(1) In public
services and posts, there shall be reserved
at the stage of direct recruitment, the
following percentage of vacancies to which
362 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
recruitment's are to be made in accordance
with the roster referred to in sub-section
(5) in favour of the persons belonging to
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
Other Backward Classes of citizens-

(a) in the case of Scheduled
Castes Twenty-one per cent;

(b) in the case of Scheduled
Tribes
Two per cent;

(c) in case of Other Backward
Classes of citizens Twenty-seven per
cent:

Provided that the reservation
under clause (c) shall not apply to the
category of Other Backward Classes of
citizens specified in Schedule II.

(5). The State Government shall,
for applying the reservation under subSection (1), by a notified order, issue a
roster which shall be continuously applied
till it is exhausted.

(6). If a person belonging to any
of the categories mentioned in subsection
(1) gets selected on the basis of merit in an
open competition with general candidates,
he shall not be adjusted against the
vacancies reserved for such category under
sub-section (1)."

13. All that aforesaid rule 3(1) provides
for percentage of vacancies for the purposes of
reservation qua direct recruitment on the post in
the Government Department and provides for
procedure to apply reservation as per roster
provided under sub-section (5) in favour of the
persons belonging to SC/ ST and OBC citizens.
The percentage provided for SC candidate is
21%, for ST 2% and for OBC 27%. There are
certain exceptions carved out to deny
reservation to OBC candidates in respect of the
persons mentioned in schedule II of the Act.

14. Now coming to the controversy raised
in these petitions, I find that petitioners are
basically aggrieved for the ratio as contained in
clause 11(8) for it being not strictly adhered to
as pleaded vide paras 23, 24 &25 of the writ
petition and for the reason that only 7358
candidates were made to qualify as 'suitable
candidates' against 609 vacancies advertised
and which accounts for a ratio of 1:12, whereas,
according to the petitioners, as was argued
before the Court, if the ratio 1:15 was made
applicable then 9135 candidates would have
been made to qualify for the second stage i.e.
main examination.

15. Plea was taken that in view of the
provisions contained under Rules, 1986, the
Commission ought not to have prepared and
published preliminary examination results
categorywise, inasmuch as, a list ought to have
been drawn of unreserved category candidates
in the first instances as per the minimum
efficiency standard fixed to make all successful
candidates to qualify irrespective of their special
reserved categories provided they met the
minimum efficiency standard as was prescribed
under clause 11(13). This logic appears to be
based upon principle of migration from
reserved to unreserved category, the latter being
open to all.

16. Thus, Sri Ashok Khare, learned
Senior Advocate, in a nut shell, raised
following arguments:

(i)
Preparation
of
result
categorywise was against the express
provisions of Rules, 1986.

(ii) The unreserved candidates
cannot be classified as a category reserved
in itself to oust the entry of reserved
9 All. Rajat Maurya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
363
category candidates even at the stage of
preliminary examination which may be
merely a screen test.

(iii) The Commission was not
justified in qualifying lesser number of
candidates in the preliminary examination/
screen test only for the reason that a
candidate if had applied against different
categories of vacancies and qualified, then
such candidate being common against such
different vacancies would be counted as
one candidate against all such posts
multiple times to form the ratio of 1:15
even though actual number may not attain
the parameter of 1:15 ratio.

17.
In
support
of
his
above
submissions, learned Senior Advocate Mr.
Khare has placed reliance upon the
judgment of Supreme Court in the case of
Saurav Yadav & Others v. State of U.P.
& Others, (2021) 4 SCC 542; Jitendra
Kumar Singh & Another v. State of U.P.
& Another, (2010) 3 SCC 119; and
Deependra Yadav & Others v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC
724.

18. Meeting the arguments advanced
as above on behalf of the petitioners, Sri
Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate at
the very threshold placed a chart after
serving a copy thereof upon learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioners, in
respect of Group1, Group-2, Group-3,
Group-4 and Group-5 posts and posts under
special drive selection, to demonstrate that
Commission strictly adhered to clause
11(8) in preparing the list as a result of
preliminary examination. The chart placed
before the Court is reproduced hereunder:

Group wise/Category wise detail
of successful candidates in Combined
State Engineering Services (General/
Special
Recruitment)
(Preliminary)
Examination
-
2024,
released
on
26.05.2025 is as follows:-

Group - 1

Detail of candidates available as
per rules against Category wise Vacancies
(General Recruitment)

Branch - Civil Engineering

Total Post - 468

Catego
ry
No.
of
Vacanci
es
No.
of
required
candidat
es at a
ratio of 1
to 15
No. of
candid
ates
finally
availa
ble
Unrese
rved
187
187x15=
2805
2443
S.C.
129
129x15=
1935
1234
S.T.
05
5x15=75
29
O.B.C.
105
105x15=
1575
1648
(1575
+73)
E.W.S.
42
42x15=6
30
371
D.F.F.
07
7x15=10
5
24
P.H.
1
8
L.V.
-01
1x15=15
03

H.H.
-08
8x15=12
0
04

O.A.
-04
4x15=60
02

B.-
01
1x15=15
00

D.-
01
1x15=15
00

O.L.
1x15=15
06
364 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
-01

D.W
.-01
1x15=15
00

A.A.
V.-
01
1x15=15
00
Ex.-
Service
men
22
22x15=3
30
00
Women
92
92x15=1
380
459

Group -2

Detail of candidates available as
per rules against Category wise Vacancies
(General Recruitment)

Branch
-
Mechanical
Engineering

Total Post - 91

Categor
y
No.
of
Vacanci
es
No.
of
require
d
candida
tes at a
ratio of
1 to 15
No. of
candid
ates
finally
availab
le
Unreser
ved
61
61x15=
915
916
(915+1
)
S.C.
09
9x15=1
35
136
(135+1
)
S.T.
04
4x15=6
0
13
O.B.C.
09
9x15=1
35
137
(135+2
)
E.W.S.
08
8x15=1
20
126
(120+6
)
D.F.F.
01
1x15=1
5
10
P.H.
0
4
L.V.
-01
1x15=1
5
01

H.
H.-
01
1x15=1
5
01

O.A
.-02
2x15=3
0
08
Ex.-
Service
men
03
3x15=4
5
09
Women
17
17x15=
255
96

Group-3

Detail of candidates available as
per rules against Category wise Vacancies
(General Recruitment)

Branch - Electrical Engineering

Total Post - 07

Categor
y
No. of
Vacanc
ies
No.
of
require
d
candida
tes at a
ratio of
1 to 15
No.
of
candida
tes
finally
availabl
e
Unreser
ved
04
4x15=6
0
63
(60+3)
S.C.
02
2x15=3
0
32
(30+2)
S.T.
00
00
00
O.B.C.
1
1x15=1
5
16
(15+1)
E.W.S.
00
00
00
D.F.F.
00
00
00
P.H.
00
00
00
Ex.-
Service
00
00
00
9 All. Rajat Maurya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
365
men
Women
01
1x15=1
5
16
(15+1)

Group-4

Detail of candidates available as
per rules against Category wise Vacancies
(General Recruitment)

Branch - Electrical/Mechanical
Engineering

Total Post -09

Categor
y
No. of
Vacanc
ies
No.
of
require
d
candida
tes at a
ratio of
1 to 15
No.
of
candida
tes
finally
availabl
e
Unreser
ved
05
5x15=7
5
77
(75+2)
S.C.
04
4x15=6
0
74
(60+14)
S.T.
00
00
00
O.B.C.
00
00
00
E.W.S.
00
00
00
D.F.F.
00
00
00
P.H.
00
00
00
Ex.-
Service
men
00
00
00
Women
01
1x15=1
5
16
(15+1)

Group-5

Detail of candidates available as
per rules against Category wise Vacancies
(General Recruitment)

Branch - Rural Engineering

Total Post -12

Categor
y
No. of
Vacanc
ies
No.
of
require
d
candida
tes at a
ratio of
1 to 15
No.
of
candida
tes
finally
availabl
e
Unreser
ved
05
5x15=7
5
31
S.C.
04
4x15=6
0
14
S.T.
00
00
00
O.B.C.
02
2x15=3
0
26
E.W.S.
01
1x15=1
5
03
D.F.F.
00
00
00
P.H.
00
00
00
Ex.-
Service
men
00
00
00
Women
02
2x15=3
0
07

(Special Recruitment)

Detail of candidates available as
per rules against Category wise Vacancies

Branch - Civil Engineering

Total Post -22

Categor
y
No. of
Vacanc
ies
No.
of
required
candidat
es at a
ratio of
1 to 15
No.
of
candida
tes
finally
availabl
e
S.C.
00
00
00
S.T.
03
3x15=4
5
29
366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
O.B.C.
19
19x15=
285
289
(285+4
)
D.F.F.
00
00
00
P.H.
01
1x15=1
5
02
Ex.-
Service
men
01
(H.H. -
01)
1x15=1
5
00
Women
04
4x15=6
0
67
(60+7)

Note - As per the order of the
Commission dated 01.08.2019, for those
examinations wherein the selection process
is finally conducted through preliminary
examination,
main
examination
and
interview, the marks and category wise cut
off
marks
related
to
preliminary
examination, main examination and final
selection
of
those
examinations
are
released after the final selection.

Sanjay Kumar Verma

(Section Officer)"

19. Defending the stand of the
Commission in preparing categorywise list
of suitable candidates in preliminary
examination and compliance of clause
11(8) of advertisement was there, Sri
Trivedi firstly argued that posts were
categorized
as
per
the
reservation
applicable both vertical and horizontal and
then in the ratio of 1:15 the candidates were
made to qualify as suitable candidates for
main examination. Mr. Trivedi however,
added that since the results were published
categorywise
to
meet
the
mandate
contained under the reservation Act, 1994
and the conditions laid in the advertisement
for prescribing different set of efficiency
standard and office memorandum issued
earlier in order to ensure representation of
all the categories to invite them to compete
at a level playing filed, a stage of final
examination, to wit 'open selection', that
candidates were confined to their respective
categories only. Hence, according to Mr.
Trivedi, if in the unreserved category
candidates belonging to unreserved were
not able to qualify to form the ratio of 1:15,
they were called in lesser number as
'suitable candidates' to qualify for main
examination and this, according to Mr.
Trivedi, may have happened to any of the
categories. Thus, the qualifying preliminary
examination result, according to Mr.
Trivedi, was bound to be category specific.

20. The second argument advanced by
Mr. Trivedi is, when the advertisement
itself provided that a reserved category
candidate would be adjusted against
unreserved category in the final selection
and the petitioners accepted such an
advertisement and conditions laid therein, it
was not open for them to make a hue and
cry now when the preliminary examination
results have been declared as per the
conditions prescribed under clause 11(14)
of the advertisement.

21. Sri Trivedi has also placed before
this Court memorandum issued by the
Secretary, Public Service Commission
dated 9th January, 2020 to buttress his
argument that whatever was prescribed
under
the
advertisement
had
the
support of the memorandum/ circular
issued
by
the
Public
Service
Commission regarding migration of the
reserved category candidate to the
unreserved
category
candidate
including those falling EWS category
only at the stage of final selection and
in the absence of any rule governing
modalities, the memorandum had the
binding force.
9 All. Rajat Maurya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
367

22. Sri Trivedi placed reliance upon
the very decision of Jitendra Kumar Singh
(supra) already relied upon by learned
Senior
Advocate
appearing
for
the
petitioner and has placed paragraphs 75, 76
and 77 thereof that run 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
fulfil
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.

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. Sections
3(1),
3(6)
and
Section
8
are
interconnected.
Expression
"open
competition" in Section 3(6) clearly
provides that all eligible candidates have
to be assessed on the same criteria.

77. We have already noticed
earlier that all the candidates irrespective
of the category they belong to have been
subjected to the uniform selection criteria.
All of them have participated in the
preliminary written test and the physical
test followed by the main written test and
the interview. Such being the position, we
are unable to accept the submissions of the
learned
counsel
for
the
appellantpetitioners that the reserved category
candidates having availed relaxation of age
are disqualified to be adjusted against the
open category seats. It was perhaps to
avoid any further confusion that the State
of Uttar Pradesh issued directions on 25-31994 to ensure compliance with the various
provisions of the Act. Non-compliance with
any officer was in fact made punishable
with imprisonment which may extend to
period of three months."

(emphasis added)

23. Sri Trivedi has further placed
reliance upon certain observations made by
the Supreme Court in Special Leave
Petition (C) No.- 1868 of 2023 Pushpendra
Kumar Patel and others v. High Court of
368 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Madhya Pradesh, whereby question of law
as to the applicability of principle of
migration at the stage of preliminary
examination was left open.

24. Sri Trivedi submitted that in the
case of Pushpendra Kumar Patel (supra)
vide paragraphs 41 and 42 the Madhya
Pradesh High Court had taken departure
from the principle laid down in the
judgement by same High Court earlier in
the matter of Kishore Choudhary v. State
of Madhya Pradesh and another in Writ
Petition No.- 542 of 2021, wherein
migration was held to be applicable at both
stages of preliminary and main examination
as per the constitutional scheme flowing
from the Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution.

25. Sri Trivedi submitted that in the
case of Deependra Yadav and others v.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others 2024
SCC Online SC 724 that arose from the
same High Court, reliance was placed upon
the judgment in the case of Kishore
Choudhary (supra) as no SLP had been
preferred against the said judgment but
upon a contradictory stand taken in the
Purshpendra Kumar Patel (supra) and upon
an SLP being preferred which though of
course came to be dismissed but the Court
left question of law open. Vide paragraph
41 and 42 of the judgment in the case of
Pushpendra Kumar Patel (supra) the
Madhya Pradesh High Court has held thus:

"41. The concept of migration
which is purely merit centric cannot be
made available to be availed by reserved
category candidates at the stage of
Preliminary
Examination
in
which
comparative merit of the candidates is not
assessed. The migration therefore can be
applied
in
the
examination
where
comparative merit is assessed which herein
is not the Preliminary Examination.

42. If right to migrate is
permitted to be availed by reserved
category candidate at the stage of result of
Preliminary Examination then that would
violate the very foundation on which the
concept of migration stands. If the
argument of learned counsel for the
petitioners is accepted, then an anomalous
situation would arise where candidates
who have not been subjected to any
comparative assessment on merit are
allowed
to
invoke
the
principle
of
migration which is founded solely on
merit."

(emphasis added)

26. The order passed by the Supreme
Court dated 7th July, 2023 arising out of
the aforesaid judgment in the matter of SLP
(C) 1868 of 2023 is reproduced hereunder:

"Upon hearing the counsel the
Court made the following

ORDER

SLP (C) No. 1868/2023

After
opening
the
sealed
envelope, we have seen the marks obtained
by one of the petitioners, namely Amit
Kumar Kirar, who had appeared in the
written examination. He has failed to
qualify. The other petitioners did not
appear in the written examination.

In view of the aforesaid position,
the present special leave petition is
rendered as infructuous and is disposed of
accordingly, leaving the question of law
open.
9 All. Rajat Maurya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
369

SLP(C) No. 4843/ 2023

This special leave petition has
become infructuous as the examination has
already held.

In view of the aforesaid position,
the special leave petition is dismissed as
infructuous."

(emphasis added)

27. Sri Trivedi also submitted that
judgment of Punjab and Haryana High
Court in the case of Haryana Public Service
Commission v. Parmila and others in LPA
No.- 329 of 2024 that permitted preparation
for the fresh merit list of the preliminary
examination test of open category by
counting the marks of all candidates, be it
of reserved or non reserved category, came
under challenge before the Supreme Court
in Special Leave to Petition No.- 38804 of
2025 and Supreme Court vide interim order
dated 26th August, 2025 stayed the
judgment of Division Bench of Punjab and
Haryana High Court by making following
observations:

"1. Delay condoned.

2. The short issue which arises
for our consideration is as regards
migration from reserved category to
unreserved category at the stage of
screening.

3. The High Court by the
impugned
order
has
allowed
such
migration.

4. The submission on behalf of
the petitioner is that such migration would
be permissible only if either the rules or
the advertisement permits, otherwise a
screening test is not one which determines
merit and, therefore, general principle of
merit based placement would not apply.