High Court · 2025

of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition. Further prayer is for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents no. 2 and 3 to prepare the select list of unreserved candidates against EWS category and issue appointment letter to the petitioner.

4. Bereft of unnecessary details the facts of the case are that an advertisement had been issued on 19.02.2025 by respondent no. 2 institute inviting application for various posts. A copy of the advertisement is annexure 2 to the writ petition. The petitioner finding herself eligible for the post of Assistant Professor, Pediatrics applied for the said post. It is contended that as per eligibility criteria (G) of the advertisement dated 19.02.2025 the post reserved for EWS category would be open as unreserved if no EWS candidate is available. All the candidates from all categories could apply against the post who could be considered as unreserved candidate if no EWS candidate is available. Admittedly the petitioner does not fall within EWS category. The petitioner claims to have submitted two applications, one against unreserved post of Assistant Professor, Pediatrics and one against unreserved EWS category. Placing reliance on higher screening committee report so far as pertains to Pediatrics, a copy of which is annexure 5 to the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that name of petitioner finds place at serial no. 24 and 25 both as an unreserved candidate against EWS category and also against unreserved category.

5. It is contended that although there was no candidate eligible for EWS category and that the respondent no. 4 also did not apply for EWS category yet respondents have proceeded to select respondent no. 4 against EWS category as would be apparent from perusal of recruitment result dated 02.07.2025, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition, so far as it pertains to Department for Pediatrics wherein name of respondent no. 4 finds place at serial no. 7 (page 33) of the writ petition.

6. The further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had been called for an interview twice i.e. against unreserved category as well as against EWS category for unreserved category and consequently once respondent no. 4 never applied against EWS category as such considering condition (G) of advertisement dated 19.02.2025 respondent no. 4 could not have been declared selected against the said unreserved category which was reserved for EWS and which vacancy could not have been thrown open to those candidates who had never applied against EWS category considering the specific condition as specified in condition (G) of the advertisement dated 19.02.2025. The further contention is that respondent no. 4 was never interviewed against EWS category unreserved.

7. On the other hand, Ms Pushpila Bisht, learned counsel for respondents no. 2 and 3 argues that condition (G) of advertisement dated 19.02.2025 would have to be read harmoniously. Admittedly the petitioner is not eligible for EWS category per se. Condition (G) specifically provided that the post reserved for EWS category would be treated as unreserved if no EWS candidate is available and thus the condition that all candidates from all categories may apply against these posts has to be read harmoniously to mean that in case an EWS candidate is not available under unreserved category than all the persons who had applied for unreserved category would be eligible for being considered for the said post.

8. So far as two call letters that had been issued to the petitioner are concerned Ms Bisht argues that perusal of said call letters, a copy of which is annexure 6 to the writ petition, would indicate that the said call letters were issued to the petitioner with respect to both the applications of the petitioner where it was specifically indicated that the petitioner would only be interviewed in case no eligible candidate for originally advertised vacancy comes at the time of interview and thus merely because the petitioner may have been interviewed against unreserved EWS category the same would not entail that it is only the petitioner who would be considered against EWS category unreserved.

9. Responding Shri Dwijendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates that from perusal of eligibility list, it is apparent that it is only the petitioner who had applied for unreserved EWS category and was only eligible candidate against said post and consequently considering condition (G) of aforesaid advertisement it is only the petitioner who could have been appointed and that the respondents have patently erred in appointing respondent no. 2 against the aforesaid post.

10. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

11. From perusal of record it emerges that an advertisement dated 19.02.2025 had been issued by the respondent no. 2 institution inviting applications for the post of Assistant Professor on regular basis. So far as the dispute is concerned, the same pertains to the post of Assistant Professor, Pediatrics unreserved. Considering condition (G) of eligibility criteria in term of advertisement dated 19.02.2025 the petitioner claims to the have applied for the post of Assistant Professor unreserved as well as reserved EWS category. Admittedly the petitioner does not fall within EWS category. Two call letters were issued to the petitioner against her two applications and she was called for an interview. The higher screening committee report so far as pertains to the post of Pediatrics was drawn up in which name of the petitioner finds place at serial no. 24 under unreserved category and also declared as eligible as unreserved candidate against EWS as well as at serial no 25 wherein the petitioner's category has been indicated as unreserved i.e. the petitioner is eligible as an unreserved category candidate.

12. However with the declaration of final result dated

02.07.2025 as challenged in the instant petition it is the respondent no. 4 who has been declared provisionally selected for the said post in the department of pediatrics in the unreserved category duly indicating that her selection is against advertised EWS post of Assistant professor.

13. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per condition (G) all the candidates from all categories were to apply for the post but it is only the petitioner who has applied for reserved EWS post consequently only the petitioner should have been declared selected and respondent no. 4 having never applied against reserved EWS category consequently the respondents have patently erred in declaring her as selected by means of impugned result dated 02.07.2025 by indicating her selected against EWS category.

14. The aforesaid argument of the petitioner is found to be patently fallacious. Condition (g) of advertisement dated

19.02.2025 is reproduced below: "G) Posts, reserved for EWS category shall be opened as UR if no EWS candidates are available. Hence, all candidates from all categories may apply against these posts. They shall be considered as UR candidates if no EWS candidate is available. [Reference: UP GO No. 6@2019@4@1@2002@dk&2@19Vh-lh-&1] 23 October 2019]. The Institute is seized of the fact that for the faculty posts, feeding experience remunerations make the candidate cross the maximum income criteria to be eligible for the benefits of EWS category. The Govt has incorporated the EWS category to accommodate such candidates who might be out of earning for any reason during the relevant previous year(s) before application." dated:

15. A perusal of condition (G) would indicate that the post reserved for EWS category were open to the unreserved if no EWS candidate was available. The confusion appears to have arisen by use of words "all candidates from all categories may apply against these posts" over which strong reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner.

16. Apart from the fact that admittedly the petitioner does not belong to EWS category the condition (G) would have to be read harmoniously in as much as the EWS reserved post was to be treated as reserved only for an EWS candidate and in case no EWS candidate was available it was to be thrown upon to all unreserved candidates. The said condition would only mean that all the candidates who have applied for the post would be treated as eligible candidates in case the EWS candidate was not available i.e. all eligible unreserved candidates would be considered against the said EWS post.

17. As already indicated above condition (G) would have to be read harmoniously i.e. in case an EWS candidate was not available against reserved vacancy then EWS category would be thrown open to all the candidates who have applied for the post and would be considered against the said posts reserved for EWS and the appointment would be on the basis of merit.

18. Here it may be indicated that no question has been raised pertaining to respondent no. 4 not being a meritorious candidate in as much as no such ground has either been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner nor taken in the writ petition. The mere fact that two call letter were issued to the petitioner against two applications will not depart from the interpretation as has been given by this Court pertaining to condition (G) of the advertisement dated 19.02.2025.

19. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 4.7.2025 J. K. Dinkar JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition. Further prayer is for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents no. 2 and 3 to prepare the select list of unreserved candidates against EWS category and issue appointment letter to the petitioner.

4. Bereft of unnecessary details the facts of the case are that an advertisement had been issued on 19.02.2025 by respondent no. 2 institute inviting application for various posts. A copy of the advertisement is annexure 2 to the writ petition. The petitioner finding herself eligible for the post of Assistant Professor, Pediatrics applied for the said post. It is contended that as per eligibility criteria (G) of the advertisement dated 19.02.2025 the post reserved for EWS category would be open as unreserved if no EWS candidate is available. All the candidates from all categories could apply against the post who could be considered as unreserved candidate if no EWS candidate is available. Admittedly the petitioner does not fall within EWS category. The petitioner claims to have submitted two applications, one against unreserved post of Assistant Professor, Pediatrics and one against unreserved EWS category. Placing reliance on higher screening committee report so far as pertains to Pediatrics, a copy of which is annexure 5 to the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that name of petitioner finds place at serial no. 24 and 25 both as an unreserved candidate against EWS category and also against unreserved category.

5. It is contended that although there was no candidate eligible for EWS category and that the respondent no. 4 also did not apply for EWS category yet respondents have proceeded to select respondent no. 4 against EWS category as would be apparent from perusal of recruitment result dated 02.07.2025, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition, so far as it pertains to Department for Pediatrics wherein name of respondent no. 4 finds place at serial no. 7 (page 33) of the writ petition.

6. The further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had been called for an interview twice i.e. against unreserved category as well as against EWS category for unreserved category and consequently once respondent no. 4 never applied against EWS category as such considering condition (G) of advertisement dated 19.02.2025 respondent no. 4 could not have been declared selected against the said unreserved category which was reserved for EWS and which vacancy could not have been thrown open to those candidates who had never applied against EWS category considering the specific condition as specified in condition (G) of the advertisement dated 19.02.2025. The further contention is that respondent no. 4 was never interviewed against EWS category unreserved.

7. On the other hand, Ms Pushpila Bisht, learned counsel for respondents no. 2 and 3 argues that condition (G) of advertisement dated 19.02.2025 would have to be read harmoniously. Admittedly the petitioner is not eligible for EWS category per se. Condition (G) specifically provided that the post reserved for EWS category would be treated as unreserved if no EWS candidate is available and thus the condition that all candidates from all categories may apply against these posts has to be read harmoniously to mean that in case an EWS candidate is not available under unreserved category than all the persons who had applied for unreserved category would be eligible for being considered for the said post.

8. So far as two call letters that had been issued to the petitioner are concerned Ms Bisht argues that perusal of said call letters, a copy of which is annexure 6 to the writ petition, would indicate that the said call letters were issued to the petitioner with respect to both the applications of the petitioner where it was specifically indicated that the petitioner would only be interviewed in case no eligible candidate for originally advertised vacancy comes at the time of interview and thus merely because the petitioner may have been interviewed against unreserved EWS category the same would not entail that it is only the petitioner who would be considered against EWS category unreserved.

9. Responding Shri Dwijendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates that from perusal of eligibility list, it is apparent that it is only the petitioner who had applied for unreserved EWS category and was only eligible candidate against said post and consequently considering condition (G) of aforesaid advertisement it is only the petitioner who could have been appointed and that the respondents have patently erred in appointing respondent no. 2 against the aforesaid post.

10. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

11. From perusal of record it emerges that an advertisement dated 19.02.2025 had been issued by the respondent no. 2 institution inviting applications for the post of Assistant Professor on regular basis. So far as the dispute is concerned, the same pertains to the post of Assistant Professor, Pediatrics unreserved. Considering condition (G) of eligibility criteria in term of advertisement dated 19.02.2025 the petitioner claims to the have applied for the post of Assistant Professor unreserved as well as reserved EWS category. Admittedly the petitioner does not fall within EWS category. Two call letters were issued to the petitioner against her two applications and she was called for an interview. The higher screening committee report so far as pertains to the post of Pediatrics was drawn up in which name of the petitioner finds place at serial no. 24 under unreserved category and also declared as eligible as unreserved candidate against EWS as well as at serial no 25 wherein the petitioner's category has been indicated as unreserved i.e. the petitioner is eligible as an unreserved category candidate.

12. However with the declaration of final result dated

02.07.2025 as challenged in the instant petition it is the respondent no. 4 who has been declared provisionally selected for the said post in the department of pediatrics in the unreserved category duly indicating that her selection is against advertised EWS post of Assistant professor.

13. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per condition (G) all the candidates from all categories were to apply for the post but it is only the petitioner who has applied for reserved EWS post consequently only the petitioner should have been declared selected and respondent no. 4 having never applied against reserved EWS category consequently the respondents have patently erred in declaring her as selected by means of impugned result dated 02.07.2025 by indicating her selected against EWS category.

14. The aforesaid argument of the petitioner is found to be patently fallacious. Condition (g) of advertisement dated

19.02.2025 is reproduced below: "G) Posts, reserved for EWS category shall be opened as UR if no EWS candidates are available. Hence, all candidates from all categories may apply against these posts. They shall be considered as UR candidates if no EWS candidate is available. [Reference: UP GO No. 6@2019@4@1@2002@dk&2@19Vh-lh-&1] 23 October 2019]. The Institute is seized of the fact that for the faculty posts, feeding experience remunerations make the candidate cross the maximum income criteria to be eligible for the benefits of EWS category. The Govt has incorporated the EWS category to accommodate such candidates who might be out of earning for any reason during the relevant previous year(s) before application." dated:

15. A perusal of condition (G) would indicate that the post reserved for EWS category were open to the unreserved if no EWS candidate was available. The confusion appears to have arisen by use of words "all candidates from all categories may apply against these posts" over which strong reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner.

16. Apart from the fact that admittedly the petitioner does not belong to EWS category the condition (G) would have to be read harmoniously in as much as the EWS reserved post was to be treated as reserved only for an EWS candidate and in case no EWS candidate was available it was to be thrown upon to all unreserved candidates. The said condition would only mean that all the candidates who have applied for the post would be treated as eligible candidates in case the EWS candidate was not available i.e. all eligible unreserved candidates would be considered against the said EWS post.

17. As already indicated above condition (G) would have to be read harmoniously i.e. in case an EWS candidate was not available against reserved vacancy then EWS category would be thrown open to all the candidates who have applied for the post and would be considered against the said posts reserved for EWS and the appointment would be on the basis of merit.

18. Here it may be indicated that no question has been raised pertaining to respondent no. 4 not being a meritorious candidate in as much as no such ground has either been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner nor taken in the writ petition. The mere fact that two call letter were issued to the petitioner against two applications will not depart from the interpretation as has been given by this Court pertaining to condition (G) of the advertisement dated 19.02.2025.

19. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 4.7.2025 J. K. Dinkar JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench