Vertical Reservation In Asst Teacher Recruitment Applicable Only After Considering All Qualifications Including Exam Marks: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has held that reservation under Section 3(6) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 in the selection of Assistant Teachers in the State shall be applicable at the stage of preparation of merit list after including the result of the Assistant Teachers Recruitment Examination...
The Allahabad High Court has held that reservation under Section 3(6) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 in the selection of Assistant Teachers in the State shall be applicable at the stage of preparation of merit list after including the result of the Assistant Teachers Recruitment Examination (ATRE) along with other qualification.
Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 prescribed the percentage of vacancies to be reserved for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Class candidates at the stage of direct recruitment. Section 3(6) provides that if any reserved category candidate under the Section gets selected based on merits in an open competition with the general candidates, he/she shall not be adjusted against the vacancies for the reserved category candidates.
The bench comprising Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Brij Raj Singh held that:
“The marks derived on the basis of the entire process i.e. ATRE-2019 coupled with other criteria of educational and training record would serve the broader and real object of Section 3(6) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994”
Factual Background
Acting under the U.P. Basic Education Act, of 1972, the State Government framed Service Rules 1981 for the selection and recruitment of Assistant Teachers in the primary schools run by the State. Rule 8 of the said Rules prescribed qualifications for appointment of the Assistant Teachers. Rule 9 provided for reservation and Rule 14 provided for procedure of appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher.
Thereafter, the U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 was enacted to provide equal opportunity to reserved category candidates seeking appointment to posts of Assistant Teachers. Subsequently, a government order dated 25.03.1994 was issued which allowed migration of Meritorious Reserved Candidates even if the benefit of relaxation has been taken by the reserved category candidates.
In 2011, the State Government amended the Service Rules 1981 to include the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) as the minimum qualification for Assistant Teachers, to improve the standard of basic education Teachers.
The amendment was upheld by the Supreme Court with certain “beneficial directions” for the Shiksha Mitra. Subsequently, Rule 8(1)(ii)(a) of the Service Rules, 1981 was further amended to include passing the Assistant Teachers Recruitment Examination as a mandatory qualification for appointment as Assistant Teacher. Rule 14 and its Appendix were amended to take 60% of the ATRE marks as weightage.
After the notification for the first ATR Examination, the same was removed as a minimum qualification but was added as a step in the selection process under Rule 14.
Subsequently, while deciding to fill up 69,000 vacancies with ATRE, the State Government did not mention any compartmentalization of candidates for or implementing vertical reservation. However, vide an advertisement it was stated that the minimum qualifying marks for the unreserved category was 65% and for the reserved category was 60%.
It was stated that this was for classification and not reservation. It was also clarified that passing ATRE was only an eligibility criterion and did not accrue any right to appointment.
Another amendment was carried out in 2019 by which a pre-qualification for appearing in the ATRE was added retrospectively from 28.06.2018, which was the date of the notification.
Upon challenge to the notification, a division bench of the Allahabad High Court held that “"ATRE" was only a qualifying examination and was not part of the recruitment process because it was meant only for attaining eligibility in order to classify the reserved and unreserved candidates to be considered for recruitment.” This was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, ATRE was conducted where 1,46,060 were found eligible. 2 select lists were published, however, allegedly, reserved candidates were not given due representation as per their quota selecting more than 50% general category candidates. Accordingly, the Meritorious Reserved Candidates were placed in a reserved category instead of a general category and did not get reservations as per Section 3 of the 1994 Act.
Feeling aggrieved, certain reserved category candidates approached the High Court. In a press note, the State Government admitted that the 1994 was not implemented properly and a fresh list was issued granting 6800 more appointments to the reserved category candidates.
The Single Judge, in writ jurisdiction, held that candidates could not migrate from one category to another based on their merits. It was held that the marks obtained by the reserved category candidates in ATRE-2019 were only for the implementation of the Reservation Act, 2014 and even additional qualifications cannot allow migration from the reserved category to the unreserved category.
Question before the High Court
Whether the marks obtained from the open competition on the result of Assistant Teachers Recruitment Examination ('ATRE') based on 2019 examination alone or the marks derived on the basis of the entire process i.e. ATRE-2019 coupled with other criteria of educational and training record would be decisive to serve the real object of Section 3(6) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994?
High Court Observations
The Court held that the Circular dated 07.01.2019 by which the minimum cut-off was fixed is not a concession under Section 8 of the 1994 Act. It was held that once the reserved category candidate who had secured higher marks or was at par with the general category candidate had migrated from the reserved category to the general category based on ATRE marks, he could not be allowed to migrate back to the reserved category after addition of other qualifications for the purposes of seeking reservation.
The Court held that by virtue of Rule 14 of the Service Rules, 1981, the merit list could only be prepared after considering all aspects of the selection process and therefore, migration could not be done earlier based only on the marks obtained in ATRE.
“Any single part of the recruitment process cannot be construed to be a decisive criteria contrary to the mandate of Rule 14 of 1981 Rules which for its operation adopts a holistic approach to serve the purpose of Section 3(6) of the Reservation Act, 1994, therefore, it cannot be restricted to ATRE, 2019 alone.”
Once there was no challenge to the examination itself and the circular dated 07.10.2019 setting the cut-off percentage had been upheld by the Supreme Court, the Court observed that it was within the State Government's power to fix the cut-off percentage. It was held that the intention of the State Government regarding migration could not be assumed based on the Circular.
“The rule of migration would only come into play on the determination of overall merit of a candidate at the end of the selection process and not at any early stage for which the intention of Rule Making Authority, i.e., the State cannot be gathered either from the circular dated 07.01.2019 or the Rules applicable in this behalf.”
Accordingly, the Court quashed the earlier merit lists issued by the State Government and directed the preparation of fresh merit lists in accordance with Rule 14 of Service Rules, 1981, reservation policy be adopted as envisaged under Section 3 (6) of Reservation Act, 1994. It was held that any reserved category candidate who secures merit equivalent to that of a general category candidate shall be placed in the general category as per Section 3(6) of the 1994 Act.
Case Title: Mahendra Pal and others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief/ Prin. Secy.Deptt. of Basic Edu. U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Ors [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 172 of 2023]
Counsel for Appellant: Sridhar Awasthi, Amit Kr. Singh Bhadauriya, Kamlesh Kumar Yadav, Susheel Kumar
Counsel for Respondent: Amit Kr. Singh Bhadauriya, Amrendra Nath Tripathi, Anurag Tripathi, Durga Prasad Shukla, Pawan Kumar Dwivedi, Ran Vijay Singh, Shradha Mishra, Vivek Mishra