The Allahabad High Court has clarified that while preliminary examination marks cannot be merged into final results, a disparity where reserved category cut-off exceeds the general category may violate constitutional guarantees under Article 14 and Article 16. The Court declined to grant immediate relief but mandated a structured post-result review mechanism to assess potential discrimination.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellants, candidates appearing for the Uttar Pradesh Provincial Civil Services (PCS) preliminary examination, challenged the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission’s policy of not adding preliminary examination marks to the final merit list. They contended that if the cut-off score for reserved categories in the preliminary exam is higher than that for the unreserved category, it effectively excludes otherwise meritorious general category candidates from appearing in the main examination, thereby violating their right to equal opportunity under the Constitution.
Key Facts
- The appellants are candidates in the Uttar Pradesh PCS Preliminary Examination for the year 2026
- The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC) has a longstanding practice of using preliminary examination as a qualifying test only, with marks not counted toward final merit
- In Special Appeal No. 200 of 2026 (Vivek Yadav and others v. State of U.P.), the Court had observed that the cut-off for reserved categories in the preliminary exam was higher than for unreserved categories, resulting in general category candidates scoring higher than the reserved cut-off yet being barred from the main exam
- In that case, the Court had issued interim directions to ensure fairness
- In the present case, the preliminary examination has not yet been conducted
- No marks or cut-off figures are available at the time of hearing
- The appellants seek interim relief to prevent potential constitutional violation
Procedural History
- 2026: Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission issued notification for PCS Preliminary Examination
- April 2026: Appellants filed writ petition before the Allahabad High Court seeking inclusion of preliminary marks and protection against discriminatory cut-offs
- 08.05.2026: Court passed interim order in Vivek Yadav v. State of U.P. (Special Appeal No. 200 of 2026) noting possible constitutional violation
- 12.05.2026: Court reiterated its observations in Vivek Yadav and extended interim protection
- 13.05.2026: Similar order passed in Bhavna Yadav v. State of U.P. (Special Appeal No. 233 of 2026)
- 29.05.2026: Present Special Appeal No. 264 of 2026 heard and disposed of
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellants:
- Argued that if reserved category cut-off exceeds general category cut-off in preliminary exam, it creates an artificial barrier for general category candidates who score above the reserved cut-off but are still excluded
- Relied on Vivek Yadav to show this scenario has already occurred and was held violative of Article 14 and Article 16(1)
- Sought immediate interim directions to prevent recurrence
For the Respondent (State of U.P. and UPPSC):
- Maintained that preliminary examination is purely qualifying and marks are not part of final merit
- Submitted that cut-offs are determined post-examination based on candidate performance and reservation policy
- Argued that no violation can be assessed before the exam is conducted and results declared
Relief Sought
The appellants sought:
- Immediate direction to include preliminary examination marks in final merit
- Or, in the alternative, direction to ensure that no candidate scoring above the general category cut-off is barred from the main examination, regardless of category
- Interim protection against exclusion based on discriminatory cut-offs
The Legal Issue
Can the exclusion of general category candidates from the main examination, despite their scores exceeding the reserved category cut-off in the preliminary exam, violate Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution, and if so, can such a violation be adjudicated before the examination is conducted and results declared?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellants relied on the Court’s own observations in Vivek Yadav v. State of U.P. (Special Appeal No. 200 of 2026), where it was held that when the cut-off for reserved categories exceeds that of the unreserved category, it results in a situation where general category candidates who score higher than the reserved cut-off are still denied entry to the main exam. This, they argued, constitutes arbitrary classification and violates the principle of equality under Article 14 and the guarantee of equal opportunity under Article 16(1). They contended that the same factual scenario is likely to recur and that the Court must act preemptively to prevent constitutional harm.
For the Respondent
The State and UPPSC argued that the preliminary examination is a qualifying test and its marks are not part of the final merit list, as per established recruitment policy. They emphasized that cut-offs are determined only after the examination is conducted and results are available, based on the distribution of scores and reservation norms. They submitted that no violation can be presumed before the event occurs and that the Court must not interfere in administrative processes before the facts are known.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the validity of the appellants’ concern, noting that the factual matrix in Vivek Yadav demonstrated a real and documented instance where the reserved category cut-off exceeded the general category cut-off, leading to the exclusion of general category candidates who had scored higher than the reserved cut-off. The Court observed that such a scenario, if left unaddressed, could amount to an arbitrary and irrational classification, violating Article 14 and Article 16(1).
"...if a situation, such as the one which had occurred in Special Appeal No. 200 of 2026... occurs, where, the cut off marks for the reserved category is higher than the general category for the preliminary examination and the appellants herein score more than the unreserved category in the said preliminary examination, yet, they are ousted from appearing in the written examination, then, it will result in violating their fundamental rights under Article 16 (1) read with 14 of the Constitution of India."
However, the Court distinguished the present case on a critical factual ground: in Vivek Yadav, the preliminary examination had already been conducted and the marks were available, allowing the Court to verify the existence of the discriminatory cut-off. In the present case, the examination has not yet been held, and no data exists to substantiate the claim of disparity.
The Court held that while the apprehension is not baseless, it is premature to grant interim relief without concrete evidence. The Court emphasized that judicial intervention must be grounded in actual facts, not hypotheticals. Nevertheless, to safeguard constitutional rights, the Court imposed a procedural safeguard: upon declaration of the preliminary examination results, the Commission must file an affidavit disclosing the cut-off marks for both reserved and unreserved categories within three days. The Writ Court (in WP(C) No. 4502 of 2026) will then examine whether the discriminatory scenario identified in Vivek Yadav has reoccurred.
The Court made clear that if such a scenario is found, the Writ Court must apply the principles laid down in the Vivek Yadav orders dated 08.05.2026 and 12.05.2026 to grant appropriate relief.
The Verdict
The Special Appeal was disposed of with the following directions:
- The appellants may appear in the preliminary examination without prejudice to their rights in the pending writ petition
- The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission shall file an affidavit disclosing the cut-off marks for reserved and unreserved categories within three days of the declaration of preliminary examination results
- The Writ Court (WP(C) No. 4502 of 2026) shall examine whether the discriminatory cut-off scenario identified in Vivek Yadav v. State of U.P. exists
- If such a scenario is found, the Writ Court shall consider the interim relief application in light of the orders dated 08.05.2026 and 12.05.2026 in Special Appeal No. 200 of 2026 and pass appropriate orders
- The pending interim relief application shall be considered at that stage
What This Means For Similar Cases
Constitutional Violation Must Be Proven, Not Presumed
- Practitioners must wait for actual exam results before challenging cut-off disparities as unconstitutional
- Mere apprehension of discrimination is insufficient; the burden lies on petitioners to demonstrate the existence of a discriminatory cut-off post-examination
- Courts will not entertain speculative challenges to administrative processes before facts materialize
Procedural Safeguards as Constitutional Shield
- Public authorities must now proactively disclose cut-off data within strict timelines after examination results
- The filing of an affidavit disclosing category-wise cut-offs is now a mandatory procedural step in competitive examinations involving reservation
- Writ Courts are empowered to intervene immediately upon verification of a Vivek Yadav-type scenario
- This creates a new, enforceable accountability mechanism for state commissions conducting multi-stage exams
Precedent-Based Relief Without Precedent-Based Interference
- The Vivek Yadav ruling is not a blanket rule but a fact-specific remedy
- Courts will apply its principles only when the exact factual condition (reserved cut-off > general cut-off) is verified
- This prevents judicial overreach while preserving the right to remedy
- Practitioners should now draft writ petitions with a built-in trigger: "If cut-off disparity is disclosed, then pray for relief under Vivek Yadav"
