Assistant Teachers Recruitment: Allahabad HC Directs UP Govt To Revise Select List After Rectifying Irregularities In Fixing Quota
The Allahabad High Court recently directed the UP Government to prepare a revised select list of 69,000 Assistant Teachers selected through the Assistant Teachers Recruitment Examination (ATRE) 2019 rectifying the irregularities committed in fixing the quota for their appointment. The bench of Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed that the rules were not followed in fixing reservations in...
The Allahabad High Court recently directed the UP Government to prepare a revised select list of 69,000 Assistant Teachers selected through the Assistant Teachers Recruitment Examination (ATRE) 2019 rectifying the irregularities committed in fixing the quota for their appointment.
The bench of Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed that the rules were not followed in fixing reservations in the recruitment process and therefore, the authorities were directed to review the select list released on January 1, 2020.
High Court further directed the government that while reviewing the select list, it should be kept in mind that the reservation should not be more than 50 percent.
Importantly, the Court also quashed the select list of additional 6,800 teachers issued by the State Government to appoint additional candidates as primary assistant teachers in the state in addition to the already appointed 69,000 candidates.
This order was passed while disposing of as many as 117 writ petitions.
The case in brief
As many as 117 writ petitions were filed before it concerning a dispute relating to the nuances of the implementation of reservation policy to the recruitment of Assistant Teachers in the primary school run by the state Government.
The primary issue which ran through all the petitions was related to the migration of Meritorious reserved category (MRC) candidates to the open category and its consequences both the reserved category as well as the unreserved category.
Essentially, in the year 2018, the State Government notified the 2nd ATRE (ATRE-2019) for filling up 69,000 vacancies of Assistant Teachers across the state.
ATRE-2019 was conducted on Jan 6, 2019, without there being any specification of minimum qualifying marks, however, on the next day that is on Jan 7, 2019, the state fixed the cut-off at 65% (general category) and 60% (reserved category).
In the examination, 4,09,530 candidates appeared and about 1,46,060 candidates were declared successful. The final select list was published on June 1, 2020, was mired with controversy and various writ petitions came to be filed interdicting the said list both by the open category candidates as well as the reserved category candidates.
There was a common ground of defective application of the reservation policy, including non-compliance of section 3(6) of the U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 dealing with the migration of MRC (Meritorious Reserved Category) candidates to the General Category.
The ‘reserved category’ candidates argued that those reserved category candidates who belong to the “Meritorious Reserved Category” (MRC), thereby entitling them to be placed in the unreserved category, have not been so placed but have been treated as belonging to the reserved category in violation of Section 3(1) & Section 3(6) of the Reservation Act, 1994.
On the other hand, the ‘General Category’ candidates argued that the reserved category candidates who have got the benefit of reservation in selection (both ATRE-2019 & TET) cannot be migrated from the reserved list to the unreserved/ open category list.
Court’s observations and findings
Having heard the counsels for the parties, as well as referring to various Supreme Court rulings, the Court came to the conclusion that a reserved category candidate cannot be excluded from the consideration zone in the open competition, in case he is able to match and score more marks than the last general category candidate in the open category.
“…any reserved category candidate, who has obtained 65% marks or more can be considered to be a meritorious reserved category candidate and accordingly allowed to compete with the general category candidate and progress to the open category, whereas a reserved category candidate, who has scored less than 65% and more than 60% in the ATRE-2019 would be considered in their own respective category and would not be allowed to progress into consideration zone with general category candidates,” the Court clarified
The Court further ruled that any candidate, belonging to a reserved category, who has availed relaxation of marks in ATRE-2019, which has been held to be an open competition, shall not be entitled to migrate from their respective category to the unreserved category while preparing the select list.
The Court also added that those candidates, whether reserved or unreserved, scoring more than 65% marks in ATRE-2019 shall be encompassed within the consideration zone of the open category and a select list shall be accordingly prepared of these candidates separately on the quality points and accordingly, 50% of the total seats shall be filled by these candidates, irrespective of whether they belong to reserved or unreserved category.
Against this backdrop, noting that there was no clarity of the score and details of the reserved category candidates, who have appeared in the ATRE-2019, the Court directed the state to review the select list of 01.06.2020 and prepare the merit of the candidates as per the observation of the court within a period of three months.
Regarding the teachers who have been appointed and are working since the last more than 2 years, whether belonging to the reserved or unreserved category but are ultimately ousted by a revision in the select list, the Court directed the State Government to intervene in the and frame a policy for adjustment of such Teachers.
With this, the writ pleas were disposed of.
Case title - Mahendra Pal And Ors. vs. State Of U.P.Thru Addl.Chief Secy. Deptt Of Basic Edu.Andors along with connected matters
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 108