Dismissed

Deen Dayal Tripathi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2019WRIA/12677/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a select list for lecturer recruitment, alleging lack of 3% reservation for disabled persons as per Section 33 of the RTE Act. The Court dismissed the plea, rejecting the supplementary affidavit and holding that disturbing selections made over 15 years is inappropriate as candidates had already joined service. Writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's prayer for supplementary affidavit rejected; Writ petition dismissed.

Deen Dayal Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and Another — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12677 of 2006 Petitioner :- Deen Dayal Tripathi Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- R.S. Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶5

The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has prayed for quashing of the select list dated 08.12.2004 and recruitment of lecturers in subject Biology made by respondent No.2 under Advertisement No.01 of 2003.

¶6

The quashing has been sought by the petitioner on the ground that 3% of the vacancies ought to have been reserved for disabled persons. This Court on 01.03.2006 passed the following order:-

¶7

"Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the provisions of Section 33 of the Act No.1 of 1996 has urged that the horizontal reservation for physically handicapped category has not been made in accordance with law. However, there are no details or material on record to substantiate the aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner for which he prays that he may be permitted to file supplementary affidavit. The prayer made is granted.

¶8

List in the next cause list."

¶9

The petitioner has not filed supplementary affidavit bringing on record the details and materials necessary in order to substantiate the said contention. More than 19 years have been passed since the date of selection, and the selected candidates may have joined and have been working on the said post. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought further time to comply with the order dated 01.03.2006.

¶10

In the facts of the present case, the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner is rejected , as after 15 years, it would not be appropriate to disturb the candidates who have been selected by select list dated 08.04.2004 and have joined pursuant to the said select list.

¶11

In view of the fact, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶12

Order Date :- 10.12.2019 Ravi Kant

Deen Dayal Tripathi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deen Dayal Tripathi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajiv Nandan Upadhyaya Vs State of U.P. and Others

Sunil Henry Vs Union of India and Others

Laxmi Kant Tripathi Vs M.D. U.P.S.R.T.C. Lucknow and Others

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohammad Arshad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vijendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others