Vivek Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P.

1. Heard Shri Vivek Singh, appellant in person and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.

2. By means of this special appeal the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 15.10.2024 passed by the Writ Court in Writ - A No. 9422 of 2023.

3. On 09.09.2025, we had passed the following order :- "1. After hearing the petitioner appearing in person, subject to what has to be argued by the State, it appears, that though the petitioner fulfilled minimum cut off marks of 40% in the written examination, he was not called for the second round of examination which included medical examination and physical examination. There were 8830 candidates who had secured more marks than the petitioner, who were called in turn, but in spite of it, the total number of posts could not be filled. The total number of posts including the post of S.I.(Confidential) were about 1300 and odd. In this process, out of 327 post of S.I. (Confidential), 172 remained vacant.

2. It is informed that after the written examination, the medical and physical examination are only qualifying examinations, meaning thereby, if a candidate succeeds in the medical and physical examinations, then, it is the result of the written examination which would be the basis for preparing the final select list. 2 SPLAD No. 638 of 2024

3. The grievance appears to be that it being so and 8830 candidates who had secured more marks than the petitioner in the written examination not having succeeded in the medical and physical examination and 172 posts of S.I. (Confidential) still remaining vacant, the next meritorious candidate based on the written examination i.e. those who had secured at least 35% in each subject and 40% aggregate, should have been called, and there was no occasion to keep 172 posts of S.I. (Confidential) the re- vacant nor advertisement is not under challenge specifically, but the petitioner says that the posts still remain vacant, and the challenge was implicit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner for quashing the result and considering him for selection against these vacant posts. them. Of course, for re-advertising

4. Learned Standing Counsel shall also seek specific instructions as to whether 172 posts of S.I. (Confidential) or any of them which were advertised earlier i.e. for the selection in which the petitioner has not been selected, are still vacant or not?

5. List/Put up this case tomorrow i.e. 10.09.2025 for further hearing."

4. The grievance of the appellant-petitioner in the writ petition was that in spite of having qualified the written examination by scoring the minimum 40% marks he was not called for document verification and physical test. The Writ Court found that the last candidate who was called for said test had secured more marks than the appellant-petitioner. The last candidate had secured 313.183 marks, whereas, the petitioner had secured only

262.388 marks in the written examination held for recruitment to the post of SI Confidential. The petitioner of course had applied for being considered under the unreserved category. Though, he claimed that he belongs to the Economically Weaker Section but this claim was not raised in the application, therefore, he has not been considered under the said category.

5. The only issue pressed by the appellant before us as already noticed in 3 SPLAD No. 638 of 2024 the above quoted order dated 09.09.2025 is that even after considering 8830 short listed candidates for the vacant posts of SI Confidential and filling up the 223, 104 posts still remained vacant, therefore, instead of re- advertising them the next in line who had qualified the written examination such as the appellant should have been called for it.

6. After hearing the parties and perusing the earlier order, in pursuance to which supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the State to which appellant has filed supplementary rejoinder affidavit, although it is the case of the State Counsel that only 104 posts of Sub-Inspector (Confidential) remained vacant and not 172, but this is not very relevant for the reason that case of the State is that none of the vacancies existed against unreserved posts. The contention is that out of 295 posts of Sub- Inspector (Confidential), which was the subject matter of advertisement dated 23.03.2021, 121 posts were for the unreserved candidates.

7. The appellant, who appears in person, invited our attention to page 122 of the paper book annexed as Annexure no.1D, according to which in the open category, that is unreserved category, 121 candidates have been selected, which corresponds to the 121 posts for the unreserved category. Apart from it, there were 32 posts of Sub-Inspector (Confidential) for the vigilance department which were advertised, out of which 15 posts were for unreserved category and as per document relied upon by the appellant at page no.122 of the paper book, these 15 posts were also filled up. The appellant of course states that he belongs to Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category, however, it is not in dispute that while applying for the recruitment he had not mentioned this fact, therefore, the benefit of Economically Weaker Section (EWS) reservation cannot be given to the 4 SPLAD No. 638 of 2024 appellant whether there is any illegality or difference in the figures placed by the opposite parties is not relevant so far as claim of the appellant herein is concerned that was only against unreserved posts which were 121 plus 15 for the police department and vigilance department, respectively, all of which were filled up as per document at page 122 of the paper book.

8. There were total 327 posts of Sub-Inspector (Confidential), which were advertised, which included 295 posts for the police department and 32 posts for the vigilance department. It is not in dispute that the appellant herein had secured 262.3881 marks out of 400 in the written examination, which was more than 40%, which entitled him to be called for document verification, etc. However, considering that there were thousands of persons who were so eligible, therefore, a process of shortlisting was adopted and 8830 candidates, who had secured more marks than the appellant, were called for document verification and physical test, out of which, only 223 candidates qualified and ultimately they were offered appointment. Thus, 104 posts remained vacant. Shortlisting of candidates is permissible where the number of candidates is very large and there was no irregularity in resorting to it. In our earlier order dated 09.09.2025, we have inadvertently mentioned this figure as 172 and have also mentioned the total posts of Sub-Inspector (Confidential) as 1300. This is incorrect. The correct figures have been given herein-above. Now the State Counsel has demonstrated before us, as already noticed herein-above, that the appellant herein had applied as an unreserved/ general category candidates and all the 121 plus 15 posts of Sub-Inspector (Confidential) belonging to the unreserved category were filled up. The 104 vacancies was not of unreserved candidates, therefore, no prejudice whatsoever has 5 SPLAD No. 638 of 2024 been caused to the appellant herein and there is no reason for this Court to interfere in this intra- court appeal. No other ground was pressed by the appellant- petitioner. We are satisfied with the explanation offered. We need not consider any other issue in the matter.

9. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. October 16, 2025 Arnima (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Vivek Singh, appellant in person and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.

2. By means of this special appeal the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 15.10.2024 passed by the Writ Court in Writ - A No. 9422 of 2023.

3. On 09.09.2025, we had passed the following order :- "1. After hearing the petitioner appearing in person, subject to what has to be argued by the State, it appears, that though the petitioner fulfilled minimum cut off marks of 40% in the written examination, he was not called for the second round of examination which included medical examination and physical examination. There were 8830 candidates who had secured more marks than the petitioner, who were called in turn, but in spite of it, the total number of posts could not be filled. The total number of posts including the post of S.I.(Confidential) were about 1300 and odd. In this process, out of 327 post of S.I. (Confidential), 172 remained vacant.

2. It is informed that after the written examination, the medical and physical examination are only qualifying examinations, meaning thereby, if a candidate succeeds in the medical and physical examinations, then, it is the result of the written examination which would be the basis for preparing the final select list. 2 SPLAD No. 638 of 2024

3. The grievance appears to be that it being so and 8830 candidates who had secured more marks than the petitioner in the written examination not having succeeded in the medical and physical examination and 172 posts of S.I. (Confidential) still remaining vacant, the next meritorious candidate based on the written examination i.e. those who had secured at least 35% in each subject and 40% aggregate, should have been called, and there was no occasion to keep 172 posts of S.I. (Confidential) the re- vacant nor advertisement is not under challenge specifically, but the petitioner says that the posts still remain vacant, and the challenge was implicit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner for quashing the result and considering him for selection against these vacant posts. them. Of course, for re-advertising

4. Learned Standing Counsel shall also seek specific instructions as to whether 172 posts of S.I. (Confidential) or any of them which were advertised earlier i.e. for the selection in which the petitioner has not been selected, are still vacant or not?

5. List/Put up this case tomorrow i.e. 10.09.2025 for further hearing."

4. The grievance of the appellant-petitioner in the writ petition was that in spite of having qualified the written examination by scoring the minimum 40% marks he was not called for document verification and physical test. The Writ Court found that the last candidate who was called for said test had secured more marks than the appellant-petitioner. The last candidate had secured 313.183 marks, whereas, the petitioner had secured only

262.388 marks in the written examination held for recruitment to the post of SI Confidential. The petitioner of course had applied for being considered under the unreserved category. Though, he claimed that he belongs to the Economically Weaker Section but this claim was not raised in the application, therefore, he has not been considered under the said category.

5. The only issue pressed by the appellant before us as already noticed in 3 SPLAD No. 638 of 2024 the above quoted order dated 09.09.2025 is that even after considering 8830 short listed candidates for the vacant posts of SI Confidential and filling up the 223, 104 posts still remained vacant, therefore, instead of re- advertising them the next in line who had qualified the written examination such as the appellant should have been called for it.

6. After hearing the parties and perusing the earlier order, in pursuance to which supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the State to which appellant has filed supplementary rejoinder affidavit, although it is the case of the State Counsel that only 104 posts of Sub-Inspector (Confidential) remained vacant and not 172, but this is not very relevant for the reason that case of the State is that none of the vacancies existed against unreserved posts. The contention is that out of 295 posts of Sub- Inspector (Confidential), which was the subject matter of advertisement dated 23.03.2021, 121 posts were for the unreserved candidates.

7. The appellant, who appears in person, invited our attention to page 122 of the paper book annexed as Annexure no.1D, according to which in the open category, that is unreserved category, 121 candidates have been selected, which corresponds to the 121 posts for the unreserved category. Apart from it, there were 32 posts of Sub-Inspector (Confidential) for the vigilance department which were advertised, out of which 15 posts were for unreserved category and as per document relied upon by the appellant at page no.122 of the paper book, these 15 posts were also filled up. The appellant of course states that he belongs to Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category, however, it is not in dispute that while applying for the recruitment he had not mentioned this fact, therefore, the benefit of Economically Weaker Section (EWS) reservation cannot be given to the 4 SPLAD No. 638 of 2024 appellant whether there is any illegality or difference in the figures placed by the opposite parties is not relevant so far as claim of the appellant herein is concerned that was only against unreserved posts which were 121 plus 15 for the police department and vigilance department, respectively, all of which were filled up as per document at page 122 of the paper book.

8. There were total 327 posts of Sub-Inspector (Confidential), which were advertised, which included 295 posts for the police department and 32 posts for the vigilance department. It is not in dispute that the appellant herein had secured 262.3881 marks out of 400 in the written examination, which was more than 40%, which entitled him to be called for document verification, etc. However, considering that there were thousands of persons who were so eligible, therefore, a process of shortlisting was adopted and 8830 candidates, who had secured more marks than the appellant, were called for document verification and physical test, out of which, only 223 candidates qualified and ultimately they were offered appointment. Thus, 104 posts remained vacant. Shortlisting of candidates is permissible where the number of candidates is very large and there was no irregularity in resorting to it. In our earlier order dated 09.09.2025, we have inadvertently mentioned this figure as 172 and have also mentioned the total posts of Sub-Inspector (Confidential) as 1300. This is incorrect. The correct figures have been given herein-above. Now the State Counsel has demonstrated before us, as already noticed herein-above, that the appellant herein had applied as an unreserved/ general category candidates and all the 121 plus 15 posts of Sub-Inspector (Confidential) belonging to the unreserved category were filled up. The 104 vacancies was not of unreserved candidates, therefore, no prejudice whatsoever has 5 SPLAD No. 638 of 2024 been caused to the appellant herein and there is no reason for this Court to interfere in this intra- court appeal. No other ground was pressed by the appellant- petitioner. We are satisfied with the explanation offered. We need not consider any other issue in the matter.

9. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. October 16, 2025 Arnima (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench