|
Author :
Nisha Sharma |
The Allahabad High Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC) to delay the main exam for 609 Group-A and Group-B positions that were advertised in April 2024. The exam was planned for September 28 but will now be held after the Commission issues a new merit list of the initial results.
Justice Ajit Kumar gave the order while listening to petitions that questioned the initial selection list. The petitions came from OBC candidates who scored better than general category candidates but were left out of the unreserved category.
The court agreed with the petitions. It instructed UPPSC to redo the merit list of the first exam. The Commission can only do the main exam after it issues the revised list.
The recruitment includes jobs like Assistant Engineer (Civil/Mechanical), District Horticulture Officer, Food Processing Officer, and Senior Technical Assistant in Chemistry, Botany, Agronomy, and Plant Protection.
The petitioners claimed the UPPSC failed to strictly adhere to the 1:15 shortlisting ratio stated in the job advertisement. Regulations stated that 9,135 candidates should be chosen for the main exam to fill the 609 available spots, but only 7,358 were declared successful.
They also claimed the unreserved group wasn't exclusive. OBC candidates who matched or passed the general cut-off scores should have been added to the open category list.
The court said after reviewing the UPPSC's shortlist that fewer individuals were on the unreserved list even though the required ratio was set for protected groups. It was clarified that benefits such as age and charge waivers do not prevent qualified candidates from protected categories from being considered for the open category.
The court has stated that candidates from reserved categories can be considered for the general merit list if they only availed of age relaxation and fee reduction during the initial exam. These candidates are allowed to switch to the general category during both the initial exam phase and the final selection.
The court highlighted the importance of equality under the law. Because of the format of the list, labelling these candidates as reserved would be unjust and biased.
