In Brief
The Supreme Court resolved multiple interconnected challenges to a 2011 recruitment process for Sub-Inspectors and Platoon Commanders in Uttar Pradesh. The selection process had been repeatedly revised—excluding candidates who used whitener on answer sheets, then including them under Court orders, and adjusting for horizontal reservation principles. The Court upheld the High Court's interpretation that unfilled vacancies must normally be carried forward for fresh selection under the Rules. However, as a one-time exception due to the case's extraordinary circumstances and multiple judicial interventions, the Court directed that 833 posts (607 vacant from training discontinuations and 205 unfilled) be filled in the present selection from candidates meeting the 50% marks threshold, applied in strict merit order respecting reservation and preference principles.", <parameter name="cited_cases">[ { "raw_citation": "Writ Petition No.67782 of 2014 (Saket Kumar v. State of U.P.)", "case_name": "Saket Kumar v. State of U.P.", "cited_year": "2015", "paragraph": "7", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "SLP (Civil) No.21843-44 (Hanuman Dutt Shukla v. State of UP)", "case_name": "Hanuman Dutt Shukla v. State of UP", "cited_year": "2016", "paragraph": "8, 22, 28", "treatment": "followed", "treatment_by": "this_court", "treatment_quote": "It is common ground that in compliance of said order dated 19.01.2016 of this Court, a list of 809 successful candidates was declared on 05.12.2016 by the Recruitment Board and appropriate relief in terms of order dated 19.01.2016 passed by this Court was given." }, { "raw_citation": "Writ Petition no.49802 of 2015", "case_name": "<UNKNOWN>", "cited_year": "2015", "paragraph": "9", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "Writ Petition No.67748 of 2015", "case_name": "<UNKNOWN>", "cited_year": "2015", "paragraph": "9", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "Writ Petition No.5158 of 2015 (Dharmendra Kumar and others v. State of U.P. & Others)", "case_name": "Dharmendra Kumar and others v. State of U.P. & Others", "cited_year": "2016", "paragraph": "11", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "Special Appeal No.416 of 2016 (Dharmendra Kumar and others v. State of U.P. & Others)", "case_name": "Dharmendra Kumar and others v. State of U.P. & Others", "cited_year": "2017", "paragraph": "11, 25", "treatment": "approved", "treatment_by": "this_court", "treatment_quote": "Similarly, the decision of the High Court in Special Appeal No.416 of 2016, in our view, was correct." } ]
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.