Summary
The Supreme Court issued one-time directions to fill 833 vacancies in the Uttar Pradesh police selection initiated in 2011: 607 arising from discontinuance or failed verification and 226 unfilled reserved posts. Selection had to follow merit, reservation and preference, with the required written-examination marks, and was not confined to litigants. Earlier protection for 1,022 whitener-category candidates remained additional to the original 4,010 posts. Unconnected promotion petitions were segregated.
Issues
- Whether vacancies normally carried forward could exceptionally be filled in the present selection.
- Whether relief should be limited to petitioners and intervenors.
- How previously protected whitener-category candidates and unrelated promotion petitions should be treated.
Held
- The High Court correctly interpreted the carry-forward requirement. Nevertheless, the repeated revisions, unusual history and substantial vacancies justified a one-time exception for this selection, rather than a general right to fill carry-forward posts from the same process. (¶¶ 25, 29)
- The Court did not undo the completed group-discussion process despite numbers exceeding the prescribed ratio. All candidates meeting the stated written qualification had participated, and remaining vacancies required completion of selection on merit. (¶¶ 25, 28)
- Relief could not be reserved to petitioners or intervenors by ignoring merit. The governing considerations remained merit, reservation, preference and the required written-examination qualification. (¶¶ 26, 29)
- The 1,022 protected candidates comprised 809, 24 and 189 candidates covered by earlier orders. Their positions were additional to the original 4,010 and could not displace the protected revised-list candidates. (¶ 28)
- The State must make 833 posts available in this selection: 607 arising from discontinuance or unsuccessful medical/character verification, plus 226 unfilled reserved posts. This direction was additional to earlier directions and subject to merit, the 50%-or-more written criterion, reservation and preference. (¶¶ 29(A), 29(B), 29(C), 29(D))
- The specified promotion petitions by serving constables or head constables were segregated for the appropriate Bench. The remaining appeals, writ petitions, transferred cases and contempt petitions were disposed of. (¶¶ 29(E), 30)
Result
Main appeals, writ petitions, transferred cases and contempt petitions disposed of without costs with the one-time 833-post directions. Specified unrelated promotion SLPs segregated for consideration by the appropriate Bench.