The Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, presided over by Justice Rajeev Singh, has dismissed a writ petition challenging the application of horizontal reservation for female candidates in the recruitment of 3,446 Technical Assistants (Group-C). The Court held that candidates who participated in the selection process cannot belatedly challenge the advertisement or its conditions after being declared unsuccessful, particularly when the underlying Government Order was not challenged and the selected candidates whose rights would be directly affected were not impleaded.
Background of the Case
The Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission (UPSSSC) issued an advertisement on March 4, 2024, inviting applications for 3,446 posts of Technical Assistant, Group-C, pursuant to a requisition from State authorities. Clause 11.13 of the advertisement stipulated that horizontal reservation for female candidates would be applied in accordance with the Government Order dated February 26, 1999, placing female candidates in their respective vertical categories.
The petitioners, Yogendra Singh Solanki and another, qualified in the Preliminary Eligibility Test (PET) and subsequently appeared in the main written examination under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category, scoring 55 and 54.75 marks, respectively. On June 23, 2026, the Commission published the main select list of 3,446 candidates, which included 689 female candidates under the 20% horizontal reservation quota. The Commission fixed the cut-off marks at 55.25 for the OBC category under vertical reservation and 41.75 marks for female candidates under horizontal reservation.
Aggrieved by their non-selection, the petitioners filed a writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Clause 11.13 of the advertisement, the cut-off marks, and the select list dated June 23, 2026, to the extent their roll numbers were excluded, alongside directions to redraw the merit list.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate Alok Mishra argued that while 629 posts were reserved vertically for OBC candidates and 126 posts corresponded to the 20% female quota within OBC, the Commission failed to disclose the category-wise breakdown of selected female candidates. Counsel submitted that 315 female candidates were selected under the OBC category after securing marks above the 41.75 threshold, leading to the ouster of male OBC candidates like the petitioners who had scored 55 and 54.75 marks.
The petitioners contended that once the 20% quota within the OBC category was satisfied by meritorious female candidates, the Commission could not lower the cut-off to 41.75 to accommodate further female candidates. They argued that horizontal reservation had been misapplied in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In support of their contentions, counsel relied on Supreme Court rulings in Sadhna Singh Dangi & Ors. v. Pinki Asati & Ors., Deep Chand v. State of U.P. & Ors., and Rakesh Vij v. Dr. Raminder Pal Singh Sethi, asserting that merit must take precedence and reserved category candidates scoring higher marks are entitled to unreserved seats.
Opposing the petition, Senior Advocate Gaurav Mehrotra, assisted by Advocate Utsav Mishra on behalf of the UPSSSC, and Additional Chief Standing Counsel Ram Pratap Singh Chauhan appearing for the State, submitted that Clause 11.13 of the advertisement conformed strictly to the Government Order dated February 26, 1999, and the clarificatory Government Order dated October 22, 2001.
The respondents highlighted that the High Court’s Division Bench in State of U.P. & Ors. v. Lal Pratap Singh & Anr. had examined the operation of the October 22, 2001 order regarding horizontal reservation adjustments under the U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependants of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993. They also referred to the Full Bench ruling in Ajay Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others, while noting that the Supreme Court in Saurav Yadav & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. had settled the mechanism governing horizontal and vertical reservations.
The respondents further raised key preliminary objections:
- The petitioners had failed to challenge the foundational Government Order dated February 26, 1999.
- Settled jurisprudence—including Rajasthan High Court & Anr. v. Rajat Yadav & Ors., Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, and Tajvir Singh Sodhi v. State of Jammu & Kashmir—bars candidates who participated and failed in a selection process from belatedly challenging the advertisement conditions.
- Appointment letters had already been issued on August 25, 2026, yet the petitioners failed to implead the selected candidates as parties, violating the rule reiterated in Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission & Ors. and Ranjan Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
Justice Rajeev Singh examined the records, affidavits, and cited precedents, including the principles on horizontal and vertical reservation discussed in Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal Public Service Commission v. Mamta Bisht, and Saurav Yadav v. State of U.P.
Addressing the maintainability and merits of the challenge, the Court observed:
Significantly, the Government Order dated 26.02.1999, whereby the scheme of vertical reservation was implemented, has not been challenged by the petitioners. It is further evident that the selection process had already been concluded in June, 2026, and appointment letters had also been issued to the selected candidates. The present petition was filed in August, 2026; however, the selected candidates, whose rights are directly affected by the relief sought in the present petition, have not been impleaded as respondents.
The Court further held:
Furthermore, the controversy in question already stands settled up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saurabh Yadav (supra). In view thereof, no interference is warranted with the selection process at this belated stage.
The Decision
Finding no ground for judicial intervention, the High Court concluded:
In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the present writ petition is misconceived and is hereby dismissed.
Case Details
Case Title: Yogendra Singh Solanki and another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Agriculture Deptt. Lko. and 2 others
Case No.: WRIT-A No. 7914 of 2026
Bench: Justice Rajeev Singh
Date: September 16, 2026
