Can OBC Candidates With Higher Marks Be Excluded From PCS Mains? Allahabad HC Seeks UPPSC Reply To Plea

The Allahabad High Court has sought replies from the Uttar Pradesh government and the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC) in a petition challenging the results of the Provincial Civil Services (PCS) Combined State/Upper Subordinate Services Preliminary Examination, 2025, and the Assistant Conservator of Forests Preliminary Examination, 2025.

Court has granted the respondents three weeks to file their counter-affidavits and has scheduled the next hearing for January 22, 2026.

The petition was filed by Manish Kumar and three other aspirants through their counsel, Advocate Krishan Kanhaya Pal, and Advocate Pooja Pal, who appeared before the bench of Justice Manish Mathur.

The petitioners contend that they appeared in the PCS preliminary examination as Other Backward Class (OBC) candidates and achieved marks higher than the cut-off fixed for the general category. Despite this, they were not included in the list of candidates eligible to appear in the main examination, a decision the petitioners claim is contrary to the Reservation Act and Migration Rules governing competitive examinations.

According to the writ petition, the UPPSC published only a provisional answer key after the PCS Preliminary Examination held on 12 October 2025 and invited objections from candidates. The petition states that no final or revised answer key was ever published, despite objections having been submitted by candidates, including some of the petitioners. Nevertheless, the commission proceeded to declare the preliminary examination results on 1 December 2025, without addressing the objections or disclosing the final answer key.

The petition further records that the result notification dated 1 December 2025 expressly stated that marks obtained by candidates and category-wise cut-off marks would be disclosed only after the declaration of final results, and that RTI applications seeking such information would not be entertained. The petitioners contend that this result-declaration mechanism is arbitrary and lacks transparency.

It is specifically pleaded that the preliminary examination was governed by the U.P. Direct Recruitment through Public Service Commission (Preliminary Examination) Rules, 1986, under which all candidates attaining the minimum qualifying marks fixed by the commission are entitled to be called for the mains examination. The petition alleges that despite this statutory framework, the commission failed to call all such candidates who met the prescribed minimum qualifying percentage.

The petitioners assert that, as per the advertisement, minimum efficiency standards were fixed at 40% for OBC candidates and 35% for SC/ST candidates in the preliminary examination. The petition claims that several candidates belonging to reserved categories who attained these minimum standards were nevertheless excluded from the mains examination.

On the issue of cut-offs, the petition expressly pleads that cut-off marks for OBC candidates were higher than those for the unreserved category, resulting in a situation where reserved-category candidates who secured higher marks were excluded, while unreserved-category candidates with lower marks were permitted to appear in the mains. The petitioners state that they matched their duplicate OMR sheets with the provisional answer key and calculated their scores as 126.35, 124, 121, and 121 marks, yet failed to qualify.

The petition also challenges the commission’s application of the 15:1 shortlisting ratio, contending that although the advertisement provided that fifteen times the number of vacancies would be called for the mains examination, this ratio was not followed in practice.

The petition also relies on earlier decisions, including the Allahabad High Court’s decision dated 25 September 2025 in Rajat Maurya and 41 others vs State of U.P., where the court had directed the commission to redraw the preliminary merit list by extending the benefit of migration to meritorious reserved-category candidates.

In its prayers, the petition seeks directions to permit the petitioners to participate in the mains examination, to extend the same benefit to all candidates who secured the minimum qualifying percentage or who scored higher than the unreserved cut-off, to strictly apply the 15:1 ratio based on total advertised vacancies, and to apply 27% OBC reservation in accordance with the U.P. Public Services (Reservation for SC, ST & OBC) Act, 1994.

The petition also seeks any other order deemed appropriate by the court, along with costs.

Case Title: Manish Kumar And 3 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Personnel Lko. And 2 Others

Order Date: December 19, 2025

Bench: Justice Manish Mathur