Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... vs Ramesh Singh And 59 Others on 17 October, 2025
Author: Rajan Roy
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:65266-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW Reserved on : September 22, 2025 Delivered on : October 17, 2025
SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 114 of 2022
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Department And 2 Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Ramesh Singh And 59 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
C.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Rajendra Prasad Shukla, Ashok Kumar Yadava, Chhaya Tripathi, Sudhir Kumar Misra, Vandana Singh
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.
(Per : Rajan Roy, J.)
1. Heard Shri Pankaj Patel, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State-appellants and Shri Sudhir Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the opposite parties.
2. This is an appeal by the State challenging the judgment and order dated 17.12.2021 passed in writ petition no. 32890 (S/S) of 2019; Ramesh Singh and 59 ors. vs. State of U.P. and ors., filed by the respondents, which has been allowed.
3. The facts of the case in brief are that for recruitment of Constables in the U.P. Civil Police, Provincial Armed Constabulary and U.P. Fire Services, a composite advertisement was issued in the year 2013. The total number of vacancies to be filled were 41,610, out of which, 35,504 posts were of Civil Police, 4033 posts were of Provincial Armed Constabulary and 2077 posts were of Fire Services. The selection was concluded and the result was prepared and published on 16.07.2015. The result was declared for 38315 posts excluding 6254 candidates who were alleged to have used whiteners/ blades in view of certain orders passed by the Allahabad High Court in Writ A No.67782 of 2014; Saket Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. and others. As per the select list, the private respondents/ petitioners were selected for appointment in the Provincial Armed Constabulary based on the merit secured by them in the selection. They completed their training from the Provincial Armed Constabulary for which they were selected. They were then posted/ appointed as Constables in the Provincial Armed Constabulary and ever since then they have been working as such.
4. Thereafter in pursuance to order dated 19.01.2016 passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 21843-21844 of 2015; Hanuman Dutt Shukla and ors. vs. State of U.P. and ors. the result was again declared on 21.05.2016 including 4429 candidates who had used whitener/ blade. While so declaring the result the directions and observations of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Hanuman Dutt Shukla (supra) were complied which were to the effect that those candidates (whitener/ blade users) who were selected as a result of directions in Saket Kumar (supra) should not be thrown out from the process of selection but the candidates who had used whitener/ blade should be given the advantage or benefit in a notional selection. The Court had also directed that in the process of reworking the result, additional number of candidates who were selected over and above the normal selection should be reckoned as against additional posts and should not be taken to be part of the original posts for the selection. Thus all the candidates who had used whiteners/ blades were considered in the process of selection and some of them did get selected. In this reworking of select list 4429 candidates were given advantage or benefit in terms of the law declared in Hanuman Dutt Shukla (supra). Thus those 4429 candidates were taken as additional appointments over and above the number of posts for which selection was made.
5. Thereafter the result was again declared on 10.06.2019 in compliance of orders passed by the Allahabad High Court in Writ A No.18442 of 2018; Pramod Kumar Singh and ors. vs. State of U.P. and ors. by applying horizontal reservation correctly in terms of the said orders.
6. On account of repeated revision/ declaration of result pertaining to certain candidates the cut-off marks changed every time.
7. Yet another round of litigation took place by the candidates who were excluded from the first list of selected candidates dated 16.07.2015 as they had used whitener/ blade. They filed several writ petitions, one of which was Writ A No.21084 of 2017; Ashish Kumar Yadav and ors. vs. State of U.P. and ors., as also Writ A No.11729 of 2018; Yadav Dharmendra Pratap and ors. vs. State of U.P. and ors., all of which were decided vide judgment dated 16.05.2018. These candidates contended that they had been excluded in the final result dated 16.07.2015 on account of having used whitener/ blade but in view of the subsequent directions in Hanuman Dutt Shukla (supra) a notional result was declared wherein 4429 candidates were accommodated but out of these only 3873 candidates joined, therefore, 509 posts were still lying vacant. They claimed that after preparation of notional result they fell between those candidates who were accommodated as a result of notional result declared aforesaid and those who were selected pursuant to the final result dated 16.07.2015 and as they were placed much higher in their respective categories, from those candidates who were declared successful and appointed pursuant to the result dated 16.07.2015, they were entitled to be accommodated against 509 vacant posts. The learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the said writ petitions vide judgment dated 16.05.2018. This led to filing of a Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.20015 of 2018 before the Supreme Court of India. An interim order was passed on 24.07.2019 in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.20015 of 2018, which read as under :-
"Heard Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija and Ms. V. Mohana, learned senior advocates for petitioners and Mr. Vinod Diwakar, learned Advocate for the State.
In the year 2013, selection process was undertaken to fill up 41,610 posts of Police Constables [U.P. Civil Police/Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC)/Fireman]). After the requisite examination, results were declared on 16.07.2015, in which 38315 candidates were successful. Thus, as on that date there were 3295 vacancies which were not filled as no suitable candidates were available.
It must be mentioned that the process for selecting Sub-Inspectors in U.P. Police was going on simultaneously and in a challenge raised in respect of said process, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad vide its order dated 29.05.2015 in the case of Saket Kumar and Ors. vs State Of U.P. and Ors directed that the candidates who had used blades and whiteners while answering the answer papers of the main examination were disqualified and their names be deleted from the selection list.
The matter was carried in appeal before this Court and by its decision dated 19.01.2016 (Hanuman Dutt Shukla & Ors. vs. State of UP), it was ruled that those who had used blades and whiteners ought not to have been disqualified. However, by that time, the process of selection had gone ahead with re-working of the seniority list in terms of the order passed in Saket Kumar. This court, therefore, observed that those candidatures who were selected as a result of directions in Saket Kumar should not be thrown out from the process of selection but the candidates who had used the blades and whiteners should be given the advantage or benefit in a notional selection. In other words, the selection list was ordered to be re-worked and in case the candidates who had used blades and whiteners were now found to be part of the selection list, they be given appropriate advantage including selection to the posts in question. It was also directed that though logically equal number of candidates must be displaced from the original list of selection, since those persons had already undergone training and some of them had joined the posts, those candidates ought not to be thrown out of service. This Court also directed that in the process, the additional number of candidates who were selected over and above the normal selection should be reckoned as against additional posts and should not be taken to be part of the original posts for selection.
The principle so devised in HD Shukla was then adopted in the process of selection for Police Constables which was going on simultaneously and consequently the selection list was reworked. Thus all the candidates who had used blades and whiteners were considered in the process of selection and some of them did get selected. In the re-working of the selection list 4429 candidates were given advantage or benefit in terms of the law declared in Hanuman Dutt Shukla which is to say those 4429 candidates would be taken as additional appointments over and above number of posts for which selection was undertaken.
In its judgment dated 16.03.2016 [Ashish Kr. Pandey & 24 others vs. State of UP. and 29 Others'], the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad observed that horizontal reservation was not properly worked and as such the State was directed to undertake the process of re-calculating horizontal reservation vacancies afresh. This case was also in relation to the process of selection for Sub Inspectors. Around same time, another decision was rendered by the High Court in Manoj Kr. & Others" adopting the principle in Ashish Kr. Pandey in selection process for Constables.
On 4.5.2018, a decision was rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Upendra and others vs. State of U.P. and Others wherein challenge was raised to certain provisions of the Reservation Act. It was submitted that going by the concept of horizontal reservation, it would not be possible to carry forward the vacancies to the next selection, in case the appropriate number of candidates for horizontal reservation were not available. The High Court accepted the plea and directed that there shall not be any carry-forward of vacancies of horizontal reservation to the next selection.
Thus the matter was clear that in case appropriate number of candidates for filling up seats meant for horizontal reservation were not available, there would not be any carry fortward of such vacancies. The order shows that about 2312 vacancies were not filled up by the State adopting the idea of carry forward principle in horizontal reservation. Therefore, as a result of the directions issued by the High Court in Upendra's case, 2312 vacancies must enure to the advantage of the candidates concerning the present selection process itself.
It is accepted by the learned counsel for the State that the State did not undertake any process of selection in respect of those 2312 vacancies. In the circumstances it is directed:
A) The State shall within a month from today complete the entire process of selection in respect of 2312 vacancies strictly in accordance with law.
B) The State shall follow the principle of reservation while filling up these 2312 vacancies.
C) While filling up these vacancies, the State shall adhere to the minimum required qualifying marks as devised during the process of selection but subject to this, the State shall consider all eligible candidates and go strictly in order of merit.
D) The State shall before the next date of hearing, shall file a list of all the selected candidates.
It is also accepted that apart from these 2312 vacancies, there are still 982 vacancies to be filled up in the original selection.
It is clarified that no candidate shall be excluded from the selection process merely because he had used blade or whitener. In case his merit position otherwise demands and entitles him to be selected, no prejudice shall be caused to him merely for the use of blade and whitener.
It is also clarified that in case any other process of selection is going ahead, the same shall not be kept in abeyance and the State is entitled to go ahead with such process.
List on 14.10.2019."
8. In pursuance to the aforesaid order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, to fill up the unfilled remaining vacancies an office memorandum dated 11.11.2019 was issued and a fresh select list was accordingly issued. A detailed report was submitted by the U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board regarding compliance of the order dated 24.07.2019, passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court as quoted herein-above, and accordingly an order dated 02.12.2019 was passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil ) No.23223 of 2018; Saurabh Yadav and ors. vs. State of U.P. and ors. noticing the compliance affidavit filed by the State of U.P. and observing that there is full compliance of the directions issued by Hon'ble the Supreme Court from time to time and nothing further needs to be done in the matter. The compliance affidavit was accordingly accepted and all the SLPs were disposed of.
9. Now the case of the private respondents, who are Constables in the Provincial Armed Constabulary, before the writ Court was that they had secured more marks than those whose names figured in the select list issued in the year 2019, therefore, based on their marks they were entitled to be appointed as Constables in the Civil Police. It is this claim which has been accepted by the writ Court. Hence this appeal by the State.
10. This Court had stayed the impugned judgment vide its order dated 28.03.2022, therefore, it has not been given effect.
11. The contention of learned counsel for the State-appellants is that due to ongoing litigation the select list for the recruitment, which was started in 2013 and issued in the year 2015, was revised four times and lastly in the year 2019 under the orders of the Court. The last select list was issued in the year 2019 in pursuance to the directions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court referred herein-above. The compliance report has already been accepted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide order dated 02.12.2019. The private respondents/ petitioners have been functioning as Constables in the Provincial Armed Constabulary ever since the year 2015, after being trained for the said post. At the time of passing of the impugned judgment in the year 2021, they had put in more than six years in the Provincial Armed Constabulary. If respondents/ petitioners are shifted to the Civil Police based on the subsequent select list of 2019, on the ground that those whose names figured in the select list of 2015 issued in pursuance to the order of the Supreme Court as quoted above, had secured less marks, consequently respondents/ petitioners had a better right to be posted/ appointed in Civil Police rather than Provincial Armed Constabulary, then, it would lead to a consequential re-shuffling of several candidates who have been working in the Provincial Armed Constabulary or Civil Police for past more than ten years, which would create a lot of financial and administrative complications and chaos and it would have a cascading effect in respect of the entire recruitment process involving more than 41,000 posts which would become an unending exercise. A lot of expenditure has been incurred in training of respondents/ petitioners and others for various wings, such as Civil Police, Provincial Armed Constabulary and Fire Service, for which they were selected and in which they have been working for the past ten years and their shifting at this stage to Civil Police would require their fresh training for the working for Civil Police, etc. involving further expenditure which would waste the money already spent on their training for Provincial Armed Constabulary. It will lead to several other administrative complications.
12. It was also the submission of learned counsel for the State-appellants that the pay and rank of Constables, whether they be in Civil Police or in the Provincial Armed Constabulary, is the same, therefore, the fact that the private respondents/ petitioners are working as Constables in the Provincial Armed Constabulary does not cause any prejudice to them in any manner. The select list of 2019 was issued only in pursuance to the directions/ orders of Honb'le the Supreme Court and it was certainly not the intent of these orders that the entire selection process held in 2015 should be thrown haywire or the select list should be revised unendingly so as to shift the person already appointed in 2015 from Provincial Armed Constabulary to Civil Police or vice versa. In fact reliance has been placed in this regard upon directions issued in Civil Appeal No.11370 of 2018; Alok Kumar Singh and ors. vs. State of U.P. and ors., wherein while discussing the order passed in Hanuman Dutt Shukla (supra) vide decision dated 27.11.2018, it was mentioned that the said decision was clear that the revised final list dated 25.06.2018 ought not to be disturbed but benefit must be given to those candidates who were excluded for use of whitener/ blade, etc. while answering the main examination. The learned Single Judge, however, has failed to consider those aspects and has erred in allowing the writ petition.
13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that persons with higher merit were entitled to be appointed/ posted in the Civil Police and as those whose name has figured in the select list issued in the year 2019 for the first time have secured lesser merit yet have been posted in the Civil Police, the respondents have a better right to be so posted/ appointed.
14. The private respondents/ petitioners have been functioning as Constables in the Provincial Armed Constabulary ever since 2015 and at the time of the passing of the impugned judgment they had put in more than six years as such and as on date they have put in more than ten years. Prior to their appointment/ posting as Constables in the Provincial Armed Constabulary, they had also undergone training meant for the said force (Provincial Armed Constabulary) which necessarily involved expenditure by State for such training. Now, after so many years, to direct their shifting to the Civil Police on the basis of marks obtained by those selected in 2019, that is on the ground that the private respondents had secured more marks than them in the year 2015, would lead to a lot of chaos and, the recruitment process, which is already over, will again have to be reopened for the purposes of preparation of a fresh select list. If such relief is granted to the private respondents/ petitioners then others who may be similarly situated may also claim similar relief, which will have a cascading effect on the entire recruitment process on account of reshuffling and reshifting of the candidates from the Civil Police to the Provincial Armed Constabulary or the Fire Service and vice-versa. This is an aspect which has not been kept in mind though it should have been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned judgment.
15. By the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge has stated that a common select/ merit list should have been prepared as once those selected in pursuance to the order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court dated 24.07.2019, that is in the year 2019, secured lesser merit than the petitioners who were selected in the year 2015 then the petitioners had a better right to be posted in the Civil Police especially as those selected has used whitener/ blade, etc. in their OMR Sheet and would not have been selected but for the order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court dated 24.07.2019 and the subsequent final order. With respect, in our opinion, it was not the intention of the said order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court that the entire recruitment process should be thrown haywire or that the entire select list which had already been revisited thrice should be again revisited afresh in its entirety and that persons should be shifted from one service to another that too after six or ten years of already having been appointed in Provincial Armed Constabulary, etc. and after being trained for the said service.
16. Moreover on being asked as to what prejudice has been caused to the private respondents/ petitioners who are already working as Constable in the Provincial Armed Constabulary since 2015, though it was stated by their counsel that their promotional avenues would be affected but the same has not been demonstrated in the writ petition nor is this a ground mentioned in the judgment of the writ Court for allowing the writ petition. It is not denied that the pay scale and the rank, whether it be of a Constable in the Civil Police or the Provincial Armed Constabulary, is similar and it is not as if the Constables in the Provincial Armed Constabulary are getting lesser pay than the Constables of the Civil Police, therefore, taking a pragmatic view of the matter we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge should have desisted from interfering in the case at such a belated stage when the private respondents/ petitioners had already put in six years of service in the Provincial Armed Constabulary. As on date they have been working in the Provincial Armed Constabulary for more than ten years. We may also point out that the impugned judgment had been stayed by this Court vide order dated 28.03.2022, therefore, it has not been given effect. To permit the judgment to be given effect at this belated stage, that is after ten years of recruitment of the private respondents/ petitioners and twelve years of the recruitment process having been set in motion, does not appear to be reasonable.
17. For the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment dated 17.12.2021 is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
(Prashant Kumar,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)
October 17, 2025
Arnima
