High Court · 2025

1. Heard Shri Jayant Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners, Shri M.N.Singh, learned counsel for Public Service Commission and learned Standing Counsel.

2. On 06.05.2025 the Court had passed the following order: "Heard Sri Jayant Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel for the U.P. Public Service Commission. In compliance of earlier of this Court dated 23rd April, 2025, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed the marks obtained by these petitioners in the selection held by the U.P. Public Service Commission pursuant to the advertisement in question and as per the marks only Sadhana Yadav and Aman Sharma have qualified. While Sadhana Yadav could not be placed in the merit list for the reason that she scored marks equivalent to another candidate and who being senior in age has been placed in the select list applying the tie breaking rule whereas in Aman Sharma's case there is no explanation forthcoming. Learned counsel for the Commission is to apprise the Court about the stand taken by the Commission in respect of the Aman Sharma on the next date fixed. Learned counsel for the Commission has further draws the attention of the Court towards the notification issued by the U.P. Public Service Commission on 7th March, 2025 brought on record as Annexure - 3 to the writ petition being Writ - A No.- 5064 of 2025 in which it has been verified that marks obtained by the candidates shall be published on the ofÏcial website soon after the recommendations are made by Public Service Commission. In my considered view, there is nothing wrong in the notification issued, nor the notification is under challenge. In this view of the matter, the petitioners would be able to know their marks soon after the recommendations are made. The result sheet placed before the Court is put back in the sealed cover to be placed in the court on the next date fixed. List on 12th May, 2025 on the top of the board. "

3. Shri M.N.Singh, learned Counsel for Commission today submits that Shri Aman Sharma could not score at par with the last cut off in the unreserved category which was 52 Aman Sharma scored only 45 marks. Learned counsel for petitioner could not dispute that the last cut off in the unreserved category was 52. Another alternative argument is sought to be raised in respect of petitioner No. 3 by learned counsel for petitioner, that petitioner No. 3 scored 41 marks which matched with the last cut-off marks and the tie breaking rule was wrongly applied as the stand of the Commission itself has been that 279 vacancies had remained unfilled due to non-availability of candidates.

4. Upon a pointed query being made Mr. M.N. Singh, submits that for the OBC category the minimum marks prescribed under the advertisement was 40% qualifying therefore, the merit could not be further lowered down.

5. In view of the stand taken by Commission under the advertisement, the counsel for petitioner could not cite any rule or regulation which may be running contrary to the advertisement. The advertisements are published as per the service recruitment rules which may provide for minimum marks as qualifying marks and the petitioners having not challenged the advertisement and having submitted to the advertisement by moving an application for the post in question now he cannot be permitted to raise objections to the conditions that are prescribed under the advertisement.

6. So far the other petitioners are concerned they all too have not been able to score the minimum marks to the last cut off marks in their respective categories, like for instance Ms. Archana Rani could score 20 marks whereas the cut off marks in the female SC category was 35 marks, Swati Patel could score 37 marks whereas the last cut off marks in the female OBC category was 41 marks, Sadhna Yadav got ousted due to tie breaking rule. Neha Rajput could score only 34 marks whereas the last cut off marks in the female OBC was 41 marks, Neha Baghel in female OBC could score only 35 marks. Garmia in SC female could score only 28 marks where as the last cut off in SC female category was 35 marks, Amrita Gupta in female OBC could score only 39 marks whereas last cut off was 41. Harshita Rai could score only 30 whereas last cut off was 44. Roma in female OBC could score 34 whereas last cut off was 41. Aman Sharma could score only 45 whereas the last cut off was 52 Sanju Kumari in OBC female could only score 39 when the last cut off in OBC female was 41.

7. Thus, petitioners could not qualify for the aforesaid reasons.

8. In the connected matter Nisha Sachan in OBC Female could score 26 whereas the last cut off was 41. Swati Sachan could score 37 whereas the last cut off was 41. Varsha Saini could score 40 in OBC female whereas the last cut off in the category was 41, Sanjana Sathi in OBC female could score 36 whereas the last cut off was 41.

9. Thus all the candidates' score could not match the marks with the last cut off of their respective categories.

10. Both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.

11. Result sheets produced on the last occasion and today also are returned to the learned cousnel for the Commissioner. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 Nadeem NADEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Shri Jayant Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners, Shri M.N.Singh, learned counsel for Public Service Commission and learned Standing Counsel.

2. On 06.05.2025 the Court had passed the following order: "Heard Sri Jayant Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel for the U.P. Public Service Commission. In compliance of earlier of this Court dated 23rd April, 2025, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed the marks obtained by these petitioners in the selection held by the U.P. Public Service Commission pursuant to the advertisement in question and as per the marks only Sadhana Yadav and Aman Sharma have qualified. While Sadhana Yadav could not be placed in the merit list for the reason that she scored marks equivalent to another candidate and who being senior in age has been placed in the select list applying the tie breaking rule whereas in Aman Sharma's case there is no explanation forthcoming. Learned counsel for the Commission is to apprise the Court about the stand taken by the Commission in respect of the Aman Sharma on the next date fixed. Learned counsel for the Commission has further draws the attention of the Court towards the notification issued by the U.P. Public Service Commission on 7th March, 2025 brought on record as Annexure - 3 to the writ petition being Writ - A No.- 5064 of 2025 in which it has been verified that marks obtained by the candidates shall be published on the ofÏcial website soon after the recommendations are made by Public Service Commission. In my considered view, there is nothing wrong in the notification issued, nor the notification is under challenge. In this view of the matter, the petitioners would be able to know their marks soon after the recommendations are made. The result sheet placed before the Court is put back in the sealed cover to be placed in the court on the next date fixed. List on 12th May, 2025 on the top of the board. "

3. Shri M.N.Singh, learned Counsel for Commission today submits that Shri Aman Sharma could not score at par with the last cut off in the unreserved category which was 52 Aman Sharma scored only 45 marks. Learned counsel for petitioner could not dispute that the last cut off in the unreserved category was 52. Another alternative argument is sought to be raised in respect of petitioner No. 3 by learned counsel for petitioner, that petitioner No. 3 scored 41 marks which matched with the last cut-off marks and the tie breaking rule was wrongly applied as the stand of the Commission itself has been that 279 vacancies had remained unfilled due to non-availability of candidates.

4. Upon a pointed query being made Mr. M.N. Singh, submits that for the OBC category the minimum marks prescribed under the advertisement was 40% qualifying therefore, the merit could not be further lowered down.

5. In view of the stand taken by Commission under the advertisement, the counsel for petitioner could not cite any rule or regulation which may be running contrary to the advertisement. The advertisements are published as per the service recruitment rules which may provide for minimum marks as qualifying marks and the petitioners having not challenged the advertisement and having submitted to the advertisement by moving an application for the post in question now he cannot be permitted to raise objections to the conditions that are prescribed under the advertisement.

6. So far the other petitioners are concerned they all too have not been able to score the minimum marks to the last cut off marks in their respective categories, like for instance Ms. Archana Rani could score 20 marks whereas the cut off marks in the female SC category was 35 marks, Swati Patel could score 37 marks whereas the last cut off marks in the female OBC category was 41 marks, Sadhna Yadav got ousted due to tie breaking rule. Neha Rajput could score only 34 marks whereas the last cut off marks in the female OBC was 41 marks, Neha Baghel in female OBC could score only 35 marks. Garmia in SC female could score only 28 marks where as the last cut off in SC female category was 35 marks, Amrita Gupta in female OBC could score only 39 marks whereas last cut off was 41. Harshita Rai could score only 30 whereas last cut off was 44. Roma in female OBC could score 34 whereas last cut off was 41. Aman Sharma could score only 45 whereas the last cut off was 52 Sanju Kumari in OBC female could only score 39 when the last cut off in OBC female was 41.

7. Thus, petitioners could not qualify for the aforesaid reasons.

8. In the connected matter Nisha Sachan in OBC Female could score 26 whereas the last cut off was 41. Swati Sachan could score 37 whereas the last cut off was 41. Varsha Saini could score 40 in OBC female whereas the last cut off in the category was 41, Sanjana Sathi in OBC female could score 36 whereas the last cut off was 41.

9. Thus all the candidates' score could not match the marks with the last cut off of their respective categories.

10. Both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.

11. Result sheets produced on the last occasion and today also are returned to the learned cousnel for the Commissioner. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 Nadeem NADEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad