The High Court disposed of a special appeal challenging a school principal's appointment. Finding no specific pleading that previous appointments treated vacancies as reserved, the Bench held the lower court correct and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 34
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1422 of 2007
Appellant :- Pt. Durga Prasad Badri Prasad Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Radha Kant Ojha,Shivendu Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Birendra Singh,D.P.S. Chauhan
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
already occupying Class-IV posts were appointed, treating vacancy as reserved at relevant point of time or appointments were made on merits and not giving benefit of reservation and such pleading has been taken in this appeal, reply comes that no such pleading has been taken either in writ petition or in this Appeal. In absence of such factual pleadings of these facts, mere fact that post is occupied by a person belonging to a particular class cannot be deemed to draw an inference that appointment has been made by treating such vacancy as reserved for Other Backward Class. It is now well established by Supreme Court judgment in Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., 2010 (3) SCC 119, wherein, it has been held that a reserved category candidate can be appointed on its own merit. The mere fact that a person belonging to reserved category has been appointed, it cannot be said that appointments have been made on reserved vacancy for the reason that general vacancy are open to all, while reserved vacancies are for only those persons who belonged to the Class for which such reservation is made .
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a vacancy occupied by a reserved category candidate invalidates a general category appointment absent specific pleading that reserved vacancies were treated as general vacancies.
Whether the High Court should interfere when necessary factual pleadings regarding the nature of previous appointments are absent.
Whther the appointment of the appellant was illegal as it treated a general vacancy as a reserved one.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., 2010 (3) SCC 119Explained¶10
Pt. Durga Prasad Badri Prasad Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya
The State Of U.P.
Respondent 4
Sudhir Agarwal
Rajendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
