Supreme Court Upholds Revised Recruitment Process, Grants Age Relaxation to Private Respondents and Candidates

The Supreme Court upheld the revised requisition and selection process, setting aside the High Court's judgment. Private respondents and 906 candidates were granted age relaxation for upcoming recruitment. Appeals were allowed, and intervenors' applications were dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Revised requisition and office memorandum rectifying category-wise vacancies.
2. Allegations of arbitrariness in the revised office memorandum.
3. Whether the revised office memorandum amounts to changing the rules of the game during the selection process.
4. Estoppel against unsuccessful candidates challenging the selection process.
5. Legality of the regularization of diploma holders.
6. Prejudice caused to General/Unreserved category candidates.
7. Entitlement of 906 candidates for appointment orders.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Revised Requisition and Office Memorandum Rectifying Category-wise Vacancies:
The revised requisition dated 20.08.2014 and the Office Memorandum dated 12.10.2014 were issued to rectify wrongful calculations of category-wise vacancies to comply with the UP Reservation Act, 1994. The revised requisition was necessary to correct the earlier miscalculation that had wrongly counted diploma holders against the OBC quota instead of the General quota. The revised requisition aimed to ensure compliance with the statutory reservation percentages.

2. Allegations of Arbitrariness in the Revised Office Memorandum:
The revised memorandum was not arbitrary but a rectification of the earlier wrongful calculation. The revised requisition was made after a detailed inquiry and consultation with relevant departments, ensuring it aligned with the UP Reservation Act, 1994. The revised requisition did not change the total number of vacancies but only corrected the distribution among categories.

3. Whether the Revised Office Memorandum Amounts to Changing the Rules of the Game During the Selection Process:
The revised requisition did not alter the eligibility criteria or the selection process but merely corrected the category-wise distribution of vacancies. This correction was necessary to comply with the reservation policy and did not amount to changing the rules of the game. The principle that rules of the game cannot be changed after the selection process had commenced was not applicable here.

4. Estoppel Against Unsuccessful Candidates Challenging the Selection Process:
The private respondents participated in the interview with full knowledge of the revised vacancies and cannot now challenge the selection process after being unsuccessful. The principle of estoppel applies, preventing them from contesting the revised notification and selection process.

5. Legality of the Regularization of Diploma Holders:
The High Court's finding that diploma holders should not have been absorbed against the General category was incorrect. The diploma holders were correctly counted against the General quota as there was no provision for reservation for Backward Classes in the concerned department at the time of their absorption. The revised requisition merely rectified the earlier wrongful calculation.

6. Prejudice Caused to General/Unreserved Category Candidates:
The revised requisition did not prejudice General category candidates as it was necessary to comply with the statutory reservation percentages. The High Court's observation that 3303 General category candidates were deprived of appearing in the interview was not substantiated by evidence. The selection process was based on merit and compliance with the reservation policy.

7. Entitlement of 906 Candidates for Appointment Orders:
The 906 candidates who were not issued appointment orders were ranked lower in the merit list and their appointment would exceed the permissible reservation limits under the UP Reservation Act, 1994. The Supreme Court cannot issue directions under Article 142 to appoint these candidates as it would violate statutory reservation limits.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, upholding the revised requisition and selection process. The private respondents and 906 candidates were granted age relaxation as a one-time measure to participate in the upcoming recruitment. The appeals were allowed, and all intervenors/impleading applications were dismissed.

---