The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC), Prayagraj has informed the Allahabad High Court that if there are equal marks, then candidates older in age will be given preference for selection.
On this, the Court said that if any of the selected candidates do not join, the post remains vacant, then the appointment of the petitioner should be considered. A single-judge bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Prashant Maheshwari.
The writ petition had been filed seeking the quashing and setting aside the impugned notice/ selection list dated February 18, 2022 issued by Respondent No 1. It also sought an order to the respondent 1 to release the merit list for interviews conducted for selection to the post of Assistant Professor Pharmacology (Medical).”
The Court noted that the UPPSC counter-affidavit’s paras 6, 7, 8 and 9 are relevant and reproduced as under:
6. That the petitioner- Shri Prashant Maheshwari (Regd.- 53200035321) belongs to unreserved category. The petitioner got 70 marks in the interview and his date of birth is 02.11.1988.
7. That in the unreserved category, the selected respondent no 2-Vijay Kumar Singh (Regd. No. 53200005746) got 72 marks. The respondent no 3-Divya Yadav (Regd. 5320002716) got 70 marks and her date of birth is 30.07.1986. The respondent no 4-Parul Kamal (Regd. No. 53200032883) got 70 marks and her date of birth is 30.09.1987.
8. It is important to mention here that according to the decision of the Commission dated March 3, 2005, the candidate senior in age in the selections through interview will be placed higher in the select list if the marks obtained in the interview of the candidates are the same. A copy of decision of the Commission dated 03.03.2005 is annexed as Annexure no 1.
9. That as per the aforesaid decision of the Commission, the present process of selection has been completed keeping the candidate senior in age higher in the select list. Since the date of birth of the petitioner is 02.11.1988, thus both the candidates having same marks have been selected as per their age i.e 30.07.1986 and 30.09.1987 respectively, in the unreserved category. Due to less age, the petitioner could not find place in the select list against the 03 posts advertised for unreserved category.”
Utkarsh Srivastava, the counsel for the petitioner, submitted that he cannot dispute the reasoning given in the mentioned counter-affidavit. However, on the basis of instruction, he submitted that all the above referred candidates have not joined the post offered and, therefore, the candidature of petitioner may be considered.
Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, the UPPSC counsel, submitted that presently the recommendation has been sent to the State (which is not a party). However, there is no communication that some of the selected candidates have not joined and in case, any requisition is forwarded from State, the case of petitioner may be considered in accordance with law, the Court said.
At this stage, the counsel for petitioner submitted that it may be kept open for petitioner to approach the authorities concerned.
In view of above, the Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to petitioner to approach the UPPSC or the Uttar Pradesh government, as the case may be, to ventilate his grievance, in case there is any requisition or vacancy arises due to non-joining of any selected candidate.