A decision related to reservation taken by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC) on May 27 is at the centre of the violent protest by the aspirants of various competitive examinations here on Monday. The protesters alleged that the policy discriminated against general category applicants appearing in various examinations being conducted by the UPPSC. On May 27,the commission decided that those candidates who were from the reserved category but had scores equal to or higher than the lowest cut-off for the general category candidates could be called for interviews as general category candidates. The decision was taken on a proposal moved by UPPSC member Gurdarshan Singh on May 27 itself. UPPSC chairman could not be reached for comment. Both the proposal and the decision have been challenged by Sudhir Kumar Singh and six others in the Allahabad High Court. A division bench of Justices Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra and Justice Rakesh Srivastava heard the matter and postponed it for July 22,asking UPPSC counsel Shashi Nandan to seek instructions in the matter. Nandan was not available for comment. The argument in the UPPSC proposal was that general category seats are kept vacant in the interim stages of examination,which indirectly meant that these seats had been reserved for general category candidates. The proposal argued that this was against the true spirit of Act No. 4 of 1994 (which governs reservation-related matters in the state). It also said that,actually,the non-reserved vacancies are not reserved for any category. Therefore,candidates from all categories (including reserved),who make the cut-off list,should be called for interviews on the non-reserved vacancies also. In the wake of the decision,the results for the UPPCS (Provincial Civil Services),also known as Upper State Subordinate Services (Mains examination-2011),were declared on July 4. More than 1,000 candidates were declared successful against a total vacancy of 389 and called for interviews,which will begin on July 26. The allegation was that many general candidates - the number could be between 200 and 250 - were deprived of an interview call due to the commissions policy. We dont have the exact number of affected candidates because the commission is not very transparent in its activities. However,we have challenged the commissions decision on other grounds, said Santosh Kumar Srivastava,counsel for petitioners Sudhir Kumar Singh and six others. Srivastava said: Our contention is that the decision is in violation of Act No. 4 of 1994. Secondly,a new decision should not be introduced mid-way through an examination process. More importantly,argued the counsel,the UPPSC did not have the power to change the reservation policy. The state changes the policy. The UPPSC is just an examining body. There was no approval from the State on the May 27 decision. The general category candidates were,therefore,feeling that they were being denied the right to sit in an examination in the first place, said Srivastava. Additional Advocate General C B Yadav,who represented the state government,however,said: The states contention was that there is no anomaly in the provisions and it is not in violation of the provisions of the Act of 1994. The commission has proceeded within the parameters of law.
