General-category candidate cannot be chosen for an EWS post while a suitable EWS applicant is available, Uttarakhand High Court rules

The University advertised one Assistant Professor (Statistics) post in the College of Forestry as reserved for the EWS category.

The petitioner, an EWS candidate, and respondent no. 3, who did not belong to the EWS category and had applied as an unreserved candidate, were shortlisted and interviewed. The Selection Committee recommended respondent no. 3, who scored 21 out of 25 marks; the petitioner scored 15.

Respondent no. 3 did not produce the EWS certificate required for appointment, and the University confirmed that he was not an EWS candidate.

The petitioner challenged the recommendation and sought appointment. The Court directed the University to disclose its selection criteria and the petitioner’s marks; the University then confirmed that no minimum interview cut-off had been prescribed.

1. Whether a candidate who neither belongs to nor applied under the EWS category could be considered and recommended for a post advertised as reserved for that category

2. Whether the petitioner could be treated as unsuitable, permitting consideration of a general-category candidate under Section 3(3) of the Uttarakhand Public Services (Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections) Act, 2019

The Uttarakhand Public Services (Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections) Act, 2019 governs EWS reservation in public services.

Section 3 provides for reservation for eligible EWS candidates; under Section 3(3), a reserved vacancy may be filled by a suitable general-category candidate only if it cannot be filled because no suitable EWS candidate is available.

Section 7 requires an EWS certificate, issued by the prescribed authority, to claim the reservation.

Respondent no. 3 admittedly was not an EWS candidate, had not applied under that category, and did not produce the certificate required by Section 7. His recommendation therefore could not be justified by Section 3(3), which permits recourse to a general-category candidate only where no suitable EWS candidate is available.

Because the Selection Committee had set no minimum cut-off marks, the petitioner’s lower score relative to respondent no. 3 did not establish that the petitioner was unsuitable.

The Committee had compared the petitioner with an ineligible candidate rather than determining whether a suitable EWS candidate was available.

It directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s candidature and issue him an appointment letter within three weeks.

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.