Allahabad High Court Dismisses Pleas Seeking 10% EWS Reservation Benefit In UP Higher Judicial Service Exam 2020

The Allahabad High Court last week dismissed two pleas seeking direction to the High Court administration to provide the benefit of the 10% reservation to the E.W.S. General Category candidates for Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service, 2020.

Stressing that once the advertisement is out, it would not be just and proper for the authorities to insert any new clause, the Bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Ajai Tyagi dismissed the pleas. 

It may be noted that according to the 103rd Amendment of the Constitution of India, a 10% reservation is provided to the Economically Weaker Sections candidates. 

The Bench also noted that the HC administration has autonomy in the matters of its services and can lay down qualification standards and decide upon the reservation scheme. The Court further noted that the State legislature isn't permitted to lay down a statutory scheme of reservation, which would govern judicial service.

Further, the Court observed that the High Court, in its wisdom, had not adopted the said rules for the academic year 2020, and therefore, no mandamus can be issued to the HC Administration to provide the benefit of the EWS quota.

The Case in brief 

One Sandeep Mittal/petitioner, a practicing advocate had moved to the High Court challenging the notification issued by the HC administration for the purpose of Direct Recruitment to Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service, 2020.   

He applied for the same on Feb 18, 2021, and further, he made a representation to the HC administration so as to grant him the benefit of the EWS Reservation which is intended for the General Category other than the category of O.B.C., SC/ST.

When he didn't receive any response from the HC administration, he moved to the HC on August 11, 2021, contending that from the beginning, he was eligible for the reservation in Economically Weaker Sections Quota as per the Constitutional Amendment and Legislative Amendment, adopted by the State of U.P. 

It was his plea that as per the Constitutional mandate and the amendment in the Constitution, a 10% reservation has to be provided to the E.W.S. General Category candidates and that non-providing of such reservation is against the constitutional mandate.

On the other hand, the counsel for the HC administration submitted that the Constitutional Amendment in question (103rd Amendment), which brought in the legislation and made part of the Constitution has to be adopted by the High Court, which was not done in by the HC administration.

In view of this, the petitioner submitted that either he be allowed to take the main examination or he may be given one more chance by raising the age as he would become disqualified next year for being overage.

Court's observations

At the outset, the Court refused to accept the request of the petitioner to issue a writ of mandamus, as the Court noted that the petitioner had appeared in the preliminary examination as a general category candidate with open eyes and could not clear the preliminary examination.

Further, refusing to declare the advertisement issued by the HC administration as illegal or arbitrary and against the mandate of the Constitution of India, the court observed thus:

"The autonomy of the High Court has envisaged under Article 233 to 235 is basic structure of Constitution. The State legislature was not permitted to lay down statutory scheme of reservation, which would govern judicial servcie and which would be bypassing constitutional mandate for Articles 233 to 235. In our case, the High Court in his wisdom had not adopted the said rules for the academic year 2020. We have our sympathy with the candidates but we cannot grant a mandamus to the petitioner to reconsider where the rules are silent."

Further, stressing that once the advertisement is out, it would not be just and proper for the authorities to insert any new clause, the Court held that it can't 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, before dismissing the plea, the Court made a request to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad to adopt the same, if not adopted.

Case title - Sandeep Mittal v. State of U.P. and Another and connected matter

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 154

Click Here To Read/Download Order