The High Court of Uttarakhand quashed the selection of a general candidate for an Assistant Professor post reserved for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category, holding that the Uttarakhand Public Services (Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections) Act, 2019 does not permit bypassing an eligible EWS applicant in favour of a higher-scoring general candidate when no minimum cut-off marks were prescribed and the EWS candidate was not found unsuitable.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Jagdish Chandra Purohit, an EWS category candidate, applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Statistics) in the College of Forestry, Veer Chandra Singh Garhwali Uttarakhand University of Horticulture and Forestry (VCSG University). The post was advertised as reserved for the EWS category under Advertisement Notice No. UUHf/dt/f.no.01/01 of 2023 dated 14.08.2023. The Selection Committee, after short-listing, recommended respondent no.3 for appointment, a candidate who did not belong to the EWS category and had not produced an EWS certificate.
Key Facts
- Advertisement issued on 14.08.2023 showing the post reserved for EWS category.
- Selection Committee meeting held on 16.02.2024 at The Competent Palace Hotel, Chakrata Road, Selaqui Industrial Area, Dehradun.
- Two candidates appeared for interview: the petitioner (EWS) and respondent no.3 (general category).
- Interview marks: petitioner obtained 2 marks in presentation and 13 in interview (total 15/25); respondent no.3 obtained 4 marks in presentation and 17 in interview (total 21/25).
- No minimum cut-off marks were prescribed by the Selection Committee.
- Minutes of the Board of Management dated 09.08.2024 approved the recommendation.
- The university admitted that respondent no.3 does not belong to the EWS category and had not been issued an appointment order.
- Respondent no.3 relied on Section 3(3) of the Uttarakhand Public Services (Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections) Act, 2019, arguing that the vacancy could be filled from a general category candidate due to non-availability of a suitable EWS candidate.
Procedural History
- 14.08.2023: Advertisement for Assistant Professor (Statistics) issued.
- 16.02.2024: Selection Committee meeting and interview.
- 09.08.2024: Board of Management approved recommendation.
- 17.08.2026: Court passed order directing university to disclose selection criteria and place on record the marks obtained by the petitioner.
- 28.09.2026: Judgment reserved.
- 06.10.2026: Judgment delivered.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: (i) A writ of certiorari to quash the recommendations/proceedings of the Selection Committee dated 16.02.2024 and the minutes of the Board of Management dated 09.08.2024; (ii) A writ of mandamus directing the respondents to recommend and appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor (Statistics) under the EWS category; (iii) Any other suitable order.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether, under Section 3(3) of the Uttarakhand Public Services (Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections) Act, 2019, a vacancy reserved for the EWS category could be filled by a general category candidate when an eligible EWS applicant had participated in the selection process, no minimum cut-off marks were prescribed, and the EWS applicant was not found unsuitable by the Selection Committee.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner contended that the selection of respondent no.3 was illegal because:
- Respondent no.3 did not belong to the EWS category and had not produced the requisite EWS certificate under Section 7 of the Act.
- The advertisement clearly earmarked the post for the EWS category, and the petitioner, as an EWS candidate, was entitled to consideration.
- The Selection Committee had not found the petitioner unsuitable; it merely compared marks without prescribing any cut-off.
- Section 3(3) applies only when no suitable EWS candidate is available; here a suitable EWS candidate (the petitioner) was present and participated.
- The reliance on merit alone to override the statutory reservation was contrary to the legislative intent and the provisions of the Act.
For the Respondent
The respondents (university and respondent no.3) argued that:
- Respondent no.3 had secured higher marks (21/25) than the petitioner (15/25) and was therefore more meritorious.
- As per Section 3(3) of the Act, if a vacancy reserved for EWS cannot be filled due to non-availability of a suitable EWS candidate, it may be filled from a suitable general category candidate.
- The petitioner’s lower marks demonstrated his unsuitability for the post, thus permitting the consideration of respondent no.3.
- The university had admitted that respondent no.3 had not been given an appointment order, but the recommendation was valid under the statutory framework.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by noting that the post was expressly reserved for the EWS category under the advertisement and the Act of 2019. It examined Section 3(3), which provides that a vacancy reserved for EWS shall not be carried forward as backlog and shall be filled from a general category candidate only if, in any recruitment year, the vacancy cannot be filled due to non-availability of a suitable EWS candidate.
The Court observed that the Selection Committee had not prescribed any minimum cut-off marks for suitability. Consequently, it could not be concluded that the petitioner was found unsuitable; the Committee merely compared the marks obtained by the two candidates. The petitioner’s score of 15 out of 25 did not, by itself, establish unsuitability in the absence of a benchmark.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the EWS candidate had applied under the reserved category, appeared for the interview, and possessed a valid EWS status. The mere fact that another candidate scored higher did not render the EWS candidate unsuitable. The Court held that the contention that the petitioner was unsuitably qualified was bereft of merit because the Selection Committee had not recorded any finding of unsuitability.
The Court also noted that the university’s counter-affidavit admitted that respondent no.3 did not belong to the EWS category and had not been issued an appointment order, yet the respondent relied on Section 3(3) to justify the recommendation. The Court found this reliance misplaced, as the precondition for invoking Section 3(3) - non-availability of a suitable EWS candidate - was not satisfied.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the selection and recommendation of respondent no.3 against the EWS-reserved post was contrary to the provisions of the Act of 2019 and illegal. The recommendation could not be sustained and was quashed.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court set aside the Selection Committee’s recommendation dated 16.02.2024 and the Board of Management’s minutes dated 09.08.2024. It directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s candidature for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Statistics) under the EWS category and to issue an appointment letter in his favour within three weeks from the date of the judgment (06.10.2026). No monetary relief or costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
EWS Reservation Cannot Be Sidestepped by Merit Alone
Practitioners must note that a higher score by a general category candidate does not automatically override an EWS reservation. The reservation can be bypassed only when the State demonstrates that no suitable EWS candidate is available, a finding that must be based on objective criteria, not merely comparative marks.
Need for Objective Suitability Criteria
Selection committees must prescribe and record objective criteria or cut-off marks for determining suitability. In the absence of such benchmarks, a candidate cannot be deemed unsuitable solely on the basis of lower relative scores, and the benefit of reservation must be extended to the eligible EWS applicant.
Strict Construction of Section 3(3) of the EWS Act
Section 3(3) applies only in genuine cases of non-availability of a suitable EWS candidate. The burden lies on the State to prove such non-availability; mere allegation or reliance on comparative merit without establishing unsuitability is insufficient. This judgment reinforces a strict scrutiny of any invocation of the backlog-filling provision.
