Allahabad High Court rules that there is no EWS quota for 69,000 assistant teachers

Since the hiring process for 69,000 assistant teachers in 2020 began prior to the passing of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for EWS) Act, 2020, the Allahabad High Court has declined to extend the benefit of reservation under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category.

To execute the reservation for economically disadvantaged groups in society, the state passed the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for EWS) Act, 2020 (UP Act No. 10 of 2020), which was published in the gazette on August 31, 2020.

According to Section 13 of the Act, selection procedures that were started before to the Act’s implementation are exempt from the EWS Act’s application.

All such proceedings that were started prior to the Act’s implementation should be handled in line with the laws that were in effect at that time.

Judge Saurabh Shyam Shamshery noted, dismissing a number of writ petitions filed by Shivam Pandey and several others: “The process of selecting candidates for 69,000 assistant teacher positions began on May 16, 2020, which is after the 103rd Constitutional Amendment but prior to the EWS Act’s enactment, which is on August 31, 2020.

“Therefore, the provisions of this Act would not apply in accordance with the savings clause (Section 13), and it would be governed by the laws and government orders in effect prior to the commencement of this Act.”

The state government published a Government Order (GO) in December 2018 directing the administration of the 2019 assistant teacher recruitment test.

Each and every petitioner met the requirements for the unreserved (generic) category. The state government then started the election process for 69000 assistant teacher positions in the state of Uttar Pradesh for elementary school appointments.

But thereafter, in accordance with the 103rd Amendment to the Indian Constitution, the petitioners acquired their EWS certifications in order to request a 10% quota for the EWS group during the hiring process.

The selection procedure was finished during the writ petition’s pendency, and the petitioners were not chosen as their merit was deemed to be inferior.

All of the petitions were rejected by the court, which determined that the petitioners’ requested remedy could not be given.