SAURAV YADAV & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

SAURAV YADAV & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

The court held that the view taken by the High Courts of Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh (the 'second view') was incorrect and must be rejected; meritorious candidates from reserved categories who secure marks above the Open/General cutoff must be considered and, if entitled, shown in the Open/General category. The 'first view' (as adopted by Rajasthan, Bombay, Uttarakhand and Gujarat High Courts and the procedure indicated by the Gujarat High Court) is correct and should be applied; accordingly OBC-Female candidates who secured marks higher than the declared Open/General Female cut-off were to be offered appointment.

Parties
Petitioners: Saurav Yadav & Ors.; Respondents: State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (civil) No. 23223 of 2018 / Miscellaneous Application No.2641 of 2019; Judgment on Miscellaneous Application and Related Ias
Outcome
Miscellaneous Application No.2641 of 2019 and I.A. No.25611 of 2019 partly allowed; Writ Petition (Civil) No.237 of 2020 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Horizontal Reservation, Vertical Reservation, Reservation Procedure, Merit in Selection
Service Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Horizontal Reservation Vertical Reservation Reservation Procedure Merit in Selection

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saurav Yadav & Ors.

Petitioners

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (civil) No. 23223 of 2018 / Miscellaneous Application No.2641 of 2019; Judgment on Miscellaneous Application and Related Ias

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether candidates belonging to reserved categories (horizontal reservation) who obtain marks higher than the last selected candidate in the Open/General category must be shown in the Open/General category on merit
  2. 2 Whether horizontal reservation requires that reserved-category candidates be adjusted only within their vertical reservation columns even if they are meritorious enough for Open/General seats (the ‘second view’)
  3. 3 What is the correct procedure to apply concurrently vertical and horizontal reservations to avoid incongruous results

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the view taken by the High Courts of Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh (the 'second view') was incorrect and must be rejected; meritorious candidates from reserved categories who secure marks above the Open/General cutoff must be considered and, if entitled, shown in the Open/General category. The 'first view' (as adopted by Rajasthan, Bombay, Uttarakhand and Gujarat High Courts and the procedure indicated by the Gujarat High Court) is correct and should be applied; accordingly OBC-Female candidates who secured marks higher than the declared Open/General Female cut-off were to be offered appointment.

Court Disposition

Miscellaneous Application No.2641 of 2019 and I.A. No.25611 of 2019 partly allowed; Writ Petition (Civil) No.237 of 2020 dismissed.

Orders

  • All candidates coming from OBC Female category who had secured more marks than 274.8928 (the marks secured by the last candidate appointed in General Category–Female) must be offered employment as Constables in Uttar Pradesh Police.
  • Appropriate offer letters shall be sent to the concerned candidates within four weeks.