Not A Case Of Non-Availability Of EWS Candidate: Uttarakhand High Court Quashes Recommendation Of General Category Candidate To EWS Reserved Post

The High Court was considering a petition seeking issuance of a direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing recommendations/proceedings of the selection committee, by means of which the name of the second respondent was forwarded/recommended by the committee for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor (Statistics) under EWS category and for quashing of the minutes of meeting by means of which the Managing Council had approved the recommendation of the Selection Committee.

The Bench of Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay held, “The candidature of the petitioner was considered vis-à-vis the candidature of respondent no.3 and respondent no.3 was recommended as he obtained more marks than the petitioner. Thus, it was not a case where due to non-availability of a suitable EWS candidate the respondent no.3 being a general category candidate was considered against the EWS reserved post. As such, the contention of the learned counsel for respondent no.3 that the petitioner was found unsuitable and, as such, candidature of respondent no.3 could have been considered against the EWS category post is bereft of merit.”

Senior Counsel Piyush Garg represented the Petitioner while Senior Counsel C.D. Bahuguna represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner who belongs to the economically weaker section (EWS) applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Statistics) in the College of Forestry, Veer Chandra Singh Garhwali Uttarakhand University of Horticulture and Forestry (VCSG University). The controversy related to the non-selection of the petitioner, who belongs to the EWS category, to the post of Assistant Professor (Statistics) under the said category. It was the case of the petitioner that the third respondent does not belong to the EWS category and he was wrongly included in the panel. The petitioner claimed that the respondent’s selection and recommendation against the post earmarked for EWS category was against the Uttarakhand Public Services (Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections) Act, 2019.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that out of total 25 marks, the petitioner had obtained 15 marks whereas the third respondent obtained 21 marks. The Bench, at the outset, stated that the reservation to the EWS category was governed by the Act of 2019 wherein, as per Section 2(b), “economically weaker sections” means economically weaker sections specified in Article 15 (6) and Article 16(6) of the Constitution.

The Bench further noticed that no minimum cut-off marks were provided by the Section Committee, as such, it could not be said that the petitioner could not obtain the requisite marks and was found unsuitable. “In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the selection and recommendation of respondent no.3 against the EWS category post was against the provisions of the Act of 2019 and was illegal. The said recommendation being contrary to the law cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, quashed”, it stated.

The Bench thus disposed of the petition by directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Statistics) in the College of Forestry under the EWS category and to issue appointment letter in his favour.

Cause Title: Jagdish Chandra Purohit v. Veer Chandra Singh Garhwali Uttarakhand University and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:UHC:9009-DB)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Counsel Piyush Garg, Advocate Shakti Sourabh Purohit

Respondent: Senior Counsel C.D. Bahuguna, Advocates C.K. Sharma, C.S. Dalakoti

Click here to read/download Order