UP judicial services: HC dismisses plea seeking benefit of EWS reservation

HC dismissed a petition that sought 10 per cent reservation for EWS in general category candidates in Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service examination, 2020

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a petition that sought 10 per cent reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in general category candidates in Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service examination, 2020, saying that once the advertisement is out, it would not be just and proper for authorities to insert any new clause.

Earlier notices were issued and the high court administration in its reply stated that the reservation of EWS "provided under Act No.10 of 2020" was not adopted by the high court while issuing the notification.

The Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for economically weaker sections) Act, 2020 (U.P. Act No. 10 of 2020) provides that at the stage of direct recruitment, 10 percent of vacancies shall be reserved in public services for persons belonging to the economically weaker sections.

Petitioner Sandeep, who is a practicing lawyer at Meerut, had moved the court seeking a direction to the high court administration to issue an amended notification providing the 10 per cent reservation for EWS.

Dismissing the petition, a bench comprising justices K J Thaker and Ajai Tyagi observed, "Once the advertisement is out, it would not be just and proper for the authorities to insert any new clause. The apex court has also held that change of any condition in the advertisement would be violative of constitutional mandate."

Hence, we cannot 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, we request the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad to adopt the same, if not adopted." the court said in its order on March 25.

"We are unable to accept the submissions of the petitioner. The advertisement issued by respondent no.2 (Registrar General) cannot be termed as illegal or arbitrary and against the mandate of the Constitution of India. It cannot be said that petitioner is discriminated," observed the court.