Allahabad HC Upholds Order Refusing EWS Reservation Benefit For Recruitment Of 69000 Assistant Teachers

This decision came on the grounds that the recruitment process had already begun before the relevant law the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for EWS) Act, 2020 came into effect.

The controversy revolved around whether the EWS reservation, introduced following the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, could be applied to this recruitment process. Although the constitutional amendment, which enabled the states to provide reservation for EWS candidates, came into force prior to the recruitment, the Uttar Pradesh-specific legislation U.P. Act No. 10 of 2020 was enacted only after the recruitment had commenced.

Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, who initially adjudicated the matter as the Single Judge, ruled that the EWS reservation benefits could not be granted retrospectively for this recruitment since the process had already been initiated before the enactment of the state legislation.

A Division Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri expressed a differing view regarding the interpretation of the law, it ultimately upheld the conclusion reached by the Single Judge namely, that EWS reservation could not be implemented in this specific recruitment exercise. The Court said, "Law is well settled that appropriate legislature can always introduce legislation with retrospective effect. We may also note that by 103rd Constitutional Amendment enabling provision was made for the States to provide for reservation to EWS candidates. It is well settled that executive powers of State is co-extensive with its legislative power. Once provision for EWS reservation was made available to the State by virtue of 103rd Constitutional Amendment it was open for the State to implement EWS reservation either by making legislation or by issuing executive instructions."

The Court extensively analyzed the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 18.2.2019, which initially introduced EWS reservation in Uttar Pradesh. It noted that this OM was later validated by the statutory enactment, which also retrospectively recognized the OM as being issued under Section 3(3) of the Act.

However, Section 13 (Savings Clause) of the Act clearly stipulates that any recruitment process commenced prior to the enactment would be governed by the rules and government orders prevailing at the time. Hence, despite the OM's retrospective recognition, the Court ruled that it could not retroactively alter the legal framework of a recruitment that had already begun.

The Court held that the process thus predated the enactment of the EWS law, and the rules governing the recruitment at that time did not prescribe any reservation for EWS candidates.

The Division Bench acknowledged that in principle, EWS reservation could have been extended to this recruitment, given that the enabling constitutional provision existed. It also reiterated the well-established legal principle that legislatures have the authority to enact laws with retrospective effect, and the executive branch, being co-extensive with the legislature, can issue such directions.

However, the Bench observed that since appointments had already been made and the selected candidates were actively serving, implementing EWS reservation at this stage would not be feasible. Critically, none of these appointees were impleaded in the writ petitions, nor was there any challenge to their selection. The Court emphasized that no relief can be granted that would affect the rights of individuals who are not party to the litigation.

Additionally, the Court noted that the recruitment process had not solicited any information from candidates regarding their EWS status, which further complicated any post-facto implementation of the reservation.

The Court deemed it impractical and legally untenable to retrospectively apply the EWS quota to the 2020 Assistant Teachers recruitment. It added, “In such circumstances, it would not be prudent exercise of discretion for this Court to issue any direction to extend 10% EWS reservation in the recruitment in question, at this stage, as implementation of such direction would be a mere impossibility. It is otherwise settled that without impleadment of persons affected or any challenge made to their appointment no direction can be issued which has the effect of dislodging selected candidates.”

Therefore, the Allahabad High Court upheld the order of the Single Judge and dismissed the appeal seeking retrospective EWS reservation for the said recruitment process.

Cause Title: Shivam Pandey & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [2025:AHC:75470-DB]

Appearance:

Petitioners: Senior Advocates Navin Kumar Sharma, Siddharth Khare, Advocates Seemant Singh, Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi, Satya Prakash Tripathi, Navin Kumar Sharma

Respondents: Advocate Archana Singh

Click here to read/download Judgment