Ravi Kumar vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others

By means of the present petition, the petitioner seeks for quashing of the order dated 1.10.2020 passed by the Additional Secretary Recruitment, U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had applied for getting benefit of horizontal reservation having been served as Home Guard for more than three years in accordance with Clause 5.7 of the notification dated 16.11.2018.

However, the candidature of the petitioner was not considered and hence he filed a writ petition no.5176 of 2020 which was disposed of on 22.7.2020 with the following directions:-

"...In the facts and circumstances, the present petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to make a fresh representation ventilating all his grievances along with copy of this order before the respondent No.2/Additional Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow, within a period of two weeks from today. If such a representation is filed, the respondent No.2 will pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months from the date of submitting of representation before him.

This court is not expressing any opinion on merits of the case and the respondent No.2 is free to pass appropriate order on the representation in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of."

The order impugned dated 1.10.2020 has been passed in compliance of the aforesaid direction.

It is categorically mentioned therein that under Clause 5.7 of the admission notification, a candidate could claim the benefit of the 5% horizontal reservation in Home Guard category, in case, he is otherwise eligible for recruitment and further his age is between 18 years to 25 years. On the last date of submission of application form he had served atleast for three years as Home guard.

The stand of the respondents in the order impugned is that the petitioner did not submit the requisite certificate issued by the District Commandant of having served as Home Guard for more than three years.

The challenge to the order impugned is based on the ground that the petitioner had submitted the certificate dated 28.11.2019 (annexed at page '37' of paper book) at the time of document verification and physical standard test. The reason for rejection of candidature of the petitioner mentioned in the order impugned in the category of Home guard, therefore, is incorrect.

In the written instructions supplied by the learned Standing counsel, it is indicated that the petitioner's date of birth as mentioned in the online application is 15.2.1992 which fact is not disputed and on the last date of submission of application form, the petitioner was about 26 years 4 months and 16 days. The benefit of horizontal reservation category of Home guard can only be granted to those candidates who fall within the aforesaid age bracket. As the petitioner does not fall within the age bracket provided in Clause 5.7 of the notification dated 16.11.2018 which governs the recruitment-in-question, the challenge to the action of the respondent not to provide him benefit of the said category to the petitioner cannot be sustained.

Further, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner based on Clause 5.1 of the notification dated 16.11.2018 is found misconceived, in as much as, 5% age relaxation granted to the candidates in vertical reservation category cannot be extended to relax the requirement of Clause 5.7 of the said notification.

Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that three years relaxation as per Clause 5.2 of the notification ought to have been granted in the maximum age in the age bracket provided under Clause 5.7 of the notification. This submission is also found to be without force. The relaxation in maximum age as mentioned in 3rd column of the table given in Clause 5.2 for horizontal category of Home Guard has to be read with Clause 3.4 of the notification which reads as under:-

3.4- आयूः-

भर्ती के लिए यह आवश्यक है किः-

(1) पुरूष अभ्यर्थी ने दिनांक 01-07-2018 को 18वर्ष की आयु प्राप्त करे और 22 वर्ष की आयु प्राप्त न की हो अर्थात अभ्यर्थी का जन्म 02 जुलाई, 1996 से पूर्व तथा 01 जुलाई, 2000 के बाद का नहीं होना चाहिए।

5.2- क्षैतिज (हारिजेण्टल) आरक्षण क्र० सं० विशेष श्रेणी प्रतिशत अधिकतम आयु सीमा में छूट प्रमाण पत्र व प्रारूप प्रमाण-पत्र देने वाले सक्षम प्राधिकारी स्वतंत्रता संग्राम सेनानी के आश्रित-आश्रित प्रमाण पत्र प्रारूप -3 जिलाधिकारी भूतपूर्व सैनिक 03 वर्ष * यूनिट डिस्चार्ज प्रमाण पत्र जिला सैनिक कल्याण एवं पुनर्वास अधिकारी होमगार्डस होमगार्डस सेवा प्रमाण पत्र जिला कमाण्डेण्ट होमगार्डस महिला (केवल आरक्षी नागरिक पुलिस के लिए)-Clause 3.4(1) provides maximum age for a male candidate not less than 22 years (raised to 23 years) on 1.7.2018, which is the eligibility qualification to participate in the recruitment process.

Reading of Clause 5.2 along with Clause 3.4 makes it clear that a male candidate who applies for horizontal reservation in Home guard category can be given relaxation of three years in the maximum age prescribed in Clause 3.4. That means, a male candidate who is below 26 years of age on 1.7.2018 could be considered, if he is otherwise found eligible. The relaxation of three years in maximum age mentioned in 3rd column of the table given in Clause 5.2 cannot be read to relax the maximum age prescribed in the age bracket given in Clause 5.7 for giving benefit of horizontal reservation category, in as much as, a candidate is eligible to be considered in the horizontal reservation of Home guard category only if he fulfills the requirements of Clause 5.7, i.e falls within the age bracket of 18 to 25 years.

This is further clear from the reading of table in Clause 5.1 which provides for relaxation in the maximum age limit for vertical reservation category candidates (SC, ST and OBC).

Further, there is no challenge to Clause 5.7 of the Recruitment notification dated 16.11.2018.

It is clear from the stand of the respondent in the written instructions that the petitioner was considered in OBC category giving relaxation of three years in maximum age prescribed in Clause 3.4, though he was about 26 years of age. The marks obtained by the petitioner being less than the cut off marks of OBC candidate in Civil Police and PAC and as such he was not allowed to participate in the further recruitment process.

For the above, no merit is found in the writ petition, the same is accordingly, dismissed.