NDLI: Saurav Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Service Law – Selection – Reservation – Horizontal reservation and vertical reservation –
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6
Case Type	Special Leave Petition
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Petition Dismissed
Headnote	Service Law – Selection – Reservation – Horizontalreservation and vertical reservation – Two candidates, one belongingto the OBC-Female category and another belonging to the SC-Female category participated in the selection process in 2013 forfilling up posts of constables in Uttar Pradesh police – They hadsecured 276.5949 and 233.1908 marks respectively – The cut-offof female (general category) was 274.8928 – They both claimedselection in General Female category – Their claim was rejected bythe State – The State relied on order dated 16.03.2016 passed bythe High Court of Allahabad which held that “if the special categorycandidate belonging to OBC category scored higher marks thanhis /her counterpart adjusted in open category, cannot be shiftedto open category” – Similar view was adopted by the MadhyaPradesh High Court (view of High Court of Allahabad and MadhyaPradesh may be termed as ‘second view’) – However, the HighCourts of Rajasthan, Bombay, Uttarakhand and Gujarat (termedas ‘first view’) have adopted the view that “Reservation prescribedmay be ‘vertical’ or ‘horizontal’ if it relates to open category, thecandidate belonging to backward class cannot be precluded fromcompeting for the said posts on their own merit with rest of thecandidate” – Held: The ‘second view’ is neither based on anyauthoritative pronouncement by Supreme Court nor does it lead toa situation where the merit is given precedence – Subject to anypermissible reservations i.e. either Social (Vertical) or Special(Horizontal), opportunities to public employment and selection ofcandidates must purely be based on merit – Any selection whichresults in candidates getting selected against Open/General categorywith less merit than the other available candidates will certainly beopposed to principles of equality – There can be special dispensationwhen it comes to candidates being considered against seats or quotameant for reserved categories and in theory it is possible that amore meritorious candidate coming from Open/General categorymay not get selected – But, the converse can never be true and willbe opposed to the very basic principles which have all the whilebeen accepted by Supreme Court – Any view or process ofinterpretation which leads to incongruity must be rejected – The‘second view’ will lead to irrational results – Therefore, the ‘secondview’ is dissapproved and rejected – The ‘first view’ which weighedwith the High Courts of Rajasthan, Bombay, Uttarakhand andGujarat is correct and rational – In the instant case, all candidatescoming from ‘OBC Female Category’ who had secured more marksthan 274.8929, i.e. the marks secured by the last candidateappointed in ‘General Category Female’ must be offered employmentas constables in Uttar Pradesh Police – Since, it has been acceptedthat none of the candidates coming from ‘SC Female Category’ hadsecured more marks than 274.8298, the claims of the Applicant no.2and all similarly situated candidates are rejected – Constitution ofIndia – Reservations.Constitution of India – Reservations – Horizontal reservationand vertical reservation – Held: Reservations, both vertical andhorizontal, are method of ensuring representation in public services– These are not to be seen as rigid “slots”, where a candidate’smerit, which otherwise entitles her to be shown in the open generalcategory, is foreclosed – Doing so, would result in a communalreservation, where each social category is confined within the extentof their reservation, thus negating merit – The open category isopen to all, and the only condition for a candidate to be shown in itis merit, regardless of whether reservation benefit of either type isavailable to her or him.Constitution of India – Reservations – Difference betweenHorizontal reservation and vertical reservation – discussed.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat Honble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
Neutral Citation	2020 INSC 714
Petitioner	Saurav Yadav & Ors.
Respondent	State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
SCR	[2020] 11 S.C.R. 281
Judgement Date	2020-12-18
Case Number	23223

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Saurav Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Rekha Sharma Vs. The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr.

Dr. V. K. Saxena Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Vice Versa

Ram Pal Singh Vs. State of U.p. & Ors.

J. Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.

U.p. Secretariat U.d.a. Association Through Its Joint Secretary, G.c. Srivastava and Ors Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

Arup Das & Ors Vs. State of Assam & Ors.

State of U.p. and Anr. Vs. Santosh Kumar Mishra and Anr.

State of Kerala and Ors. Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair

Pramod Kumar Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

Saurav Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Saurav Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Rekha Sharma Vs. The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr.

Dr. V. K. Saxena Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Vice Versa

Ram Pal Singh Vs. State of U.p. & Ors.

J. Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.

U.p. Secretariat U.d.a. Association Through Its Joint Secretary, G.c. Srivastava and Ors Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

Arup Das & Ors Vs. State of Assam & Ors.

State of U.p. and Anr. Vs. Santosh Kumar Mishra and Anr.

State of Kerala and Ors. Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair

Pramod Kumar Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

Saurav Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.