Allahabad High Court has refused to extend the benefit of reservation under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category for the recruitment of 69,000 Assistant Teachers held in 2020, as the recruitment process was initiated before the enactment of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for EWS) Act, 2020.
The state enacted the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for EWS) Act, 2020 (UP Act No. 10 of 2020), published in the gazette on August 31, 2020 for implementation of the reservation for economically weaker sections of the society.
Section 13 of the Act provides that the EWS Act shall not be applicable to selection processes that have been initiated before the commencement of the Act.
All such processes initiated before the commencement of the Act shall be dealt with in accordance with the laws in force before the commencement of the Act.
Dismissing a bunch of writ petitions filed by Shivam Pandey and several others, Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed: “Selection process of appointment of 69,000 posts of Assistant Teachers was commenced from May 16, 2020 i.e. after 103rd Constitutional Amendment but before the enactment of EWS Act i.e. on August 31, 2020.
“Therefore, as per the savings clause (Section 13), provisions of this Act would not be applicable and it would be governed by provisions of law and government order as they stood before the commencement of this Act.”
In December 2018, the state government issued a Government Order (GO) to conduct the assistant teacher recruitment examination, 2019.
All petitioners stood qualified in the unreserved (general) category. Subsequently, the state government initiated the process of election of 69000 posts of Assistant Teachers for appointment in primary education in the state of Uttar Pradesh.
However, subsequently, pursuant to the 103rd Amendment in the Constitution of India, the petitioners obtained their EWS certificates seeking a 10 per cent reservation of the EWS category in the recruitment process.
During the pendency of the writ petition, the selection process was completed, and the petitioners were not selected as they were placed lower in merit.
The court has dismissed all the petitions, holding that the relief sought by the petitioners could not be granted.
Comments
0 comment