Allahabad High Court Orders UPPSC to Redraw CES Prelims 2024-25 Results Before Holding Mains

Justice Ajit Kumar, deciding three connected petitions led by Rajat Maurya and 41 others v. State of U.P., examined the legality of the Commission’s decision to publish category-wise results for the preliminary exam held under Advertisement No. A-9/E-1/2024. The advertisement had notified 609 vacancies, including posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil/Mechanical), District Horticulture Officer, Food Processing Officer, and Senior Technical Assistants.

The preliminary examination, held earlier this year, had its results declared on May 26, 2025. Against 609 posts, only 7,358 candidates were shortlisted for the mains examination, whereas Clause 11(8) of the advertisement required fifteen times the vacancies, 9,135 candidates, to be declared qualified.

Petitioners argued that the Commission’s method of publishing results strictly category-wise unfairly excluded many meritorious candidates belonging to OBC, SC and ST communities who had scored higher than the last unreserved candidate but were not counted in the open list.

Senior Advocate Ashok Khare, appearing for the petitioners, contended that the unreserved category is not a “reservation quota” in itself and must remain open to all candidates. By limiting migration only to the final selection stage, the Commission effectively denied equal opportunity at the very threshold of the recruitment process. He relied upon the Supreme Court’s judgments in Saurav Yadav v. State of U.P. (2021), Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. (2010), and Deependra Yadav v. State of M.P. (2024) to argue that migration principles must apply consistently throughout the selection process.

On the other hand, Senior Advocate Anoop Trivedi, representing UPPSC, defended the category-wise approach. He argued that the Commission had strictly adhered to Clause 11(8) and followed the Reservation Act, 1994, which mandated separate efficiency standards, 35% for SC/ST candidates and 40% for others.

According to him, migration was permitted only at the final stage, and petitioners, having accepted the terms of the advertisement, could not now challenge them. He also referred to conflicting High Court judgments across states and pointed out that the Supreme Court had kept the legal question open in Pushpendra Patel (2023), while staying a Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling that had permitted migration at the screening stage.

Justice Ajit Kumar, however, emphasised that the “open category is not a quota” and must remain accessible to all candidates, regardless of caste or community, provided they meet the qualifying cut-off.

Court noted that UPPSC’s category-wise lists effectively reduced the pool of unreserved candidates, contrary to the principle of merit-based selection.

“Meritorious candidates belonging to reserved categories cannot be barred from competing in the open category merely because the result is at the preliminary stage. The principle of migration cannot be restricted only to the final stage of selection,” the court held.

It directed UPPSC to redraw the preliminary results by including reserved category candidates who had secured marks at par with or above the unreserved cut-off in the open list.

"...and thereafter only Commission shall be holding main examination on the basis of such revised preliminary examination result," court ordered.

Case Title: Rajat Maurya And 41 Others vs State of UP and 6 Ors and Connected Matters

Judgment Date: September 25, 2025

Bench: Justice Ajit Kumar