Allowed

Smt. Ruby Sharma v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2019WRIA/3729/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that with only four sanctioned posts in the Assistant Teacher cadre, no reservation for SC/ST candidates is permissible under the Heera Lal precedent. Consequently, an order disapproving a General Category appointment due to alleged violation of an unlawful reservation directive was set aside, directing fresh approval.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 11.01.2019 and 13.02.2019 directing SC/ST reservation are set aside; petitioner's appointment is approved and Respondent is directed to pass a fresh order.

Smt. Ruby Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3729 of 2019 Petitioner :- Smt. Ruby Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shantanu Khare,Ashok Khare, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandan Agarwal,H.P. Shahi

¶2

and

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16709 of 2019 Petitioner :- C/M Janta Adarsh Junior High School And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Samarath Singh,Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi,Sankalp Narain Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandan Agarwal

¶4

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

These two writ petitions have been filed challenging the orders dated 11.01.2019 and 13.02.2019 passed by respondent no.3District Basic Education Officer, Badaun, therefore, both the writ petitions are decided together.

¶7

The facts in brief are stated from Writ-A No. 3729 of 2019. There are four sanctions posts in the cadre of Assistant Teacher in college known as Janta Adarsh Junior, High School, Khitaura. Two posts became vacant on account of retirement, and accordingly the Committee of Management of the college sent a request to the respondent no. 3-District Basic Education Officer, Badaun seeking permission to fill up the vacant posts. Respondent no.3-District Basic Education Officer, Badaun by order dated 11.01.2019 permitted the management of the college to fill up aforesaid posts with the condition that one post should be filled up by the O.B.C. category candidate and other one by scheduled caste category candidate. Manager of the institution immediately submitted objections to the order dated 11.01.2019 of respondent no. 3 to the extent it directs the Committee of Management to fill up one post from scheduled caste candidate.

¶8

Thereafter, the Committee of Management of the institution proceeded to fill up the post and one post reserved for O.B.C. was filled up by one Varun Kumar and other one was filled up by Smt. Rubi Sharma who belongs to general category

¶9

candidate. It appears that papers of selection proceedings were forwarded by Committee of Management to the respondent no.3-District Basic Education Officer, Badaun for approval, and the respondent no. 3-District Basic Education Officer, Badaun by order dated 31.01.2019 granted approval to the appointment of one Varun Kumar who was appointed on the post reserved for O.B.C. category candidate. Respondent no. 3- District Basic Education Officer by order dated 13.02.2019 did not approve the appointment of Rubi Sharma on the ground that the post on which she was appointed was to be filled up by a candidate belonging to scheduled caste category.

¶10

Challenging the, two orders dated 11.01.2019 and 13.02.2019 passed by respondent no. 3-District Basic Education Officer (Badaun), learned senior counsel contended that admittedly there are only four posts in the cadre of Assistant Teacher and as such no post can be reserved for candidate belonging to SC/ST category in view of full Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Heera Lal Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2010 (82) AIILR 453. Further, he has placed reliance upon a Government Order dated 11.06.2015 which provides that in case where there are four sanctions posts in a cadre, one post can be reserved for the O.B.C. category candidate and no post can be reserved for SC/ST category. Thus, the submission is that the reason assigned by the respondent no. 3 for not granting the approval to petitioner Rubi Sharma is not sustainable in law and is in contradiction the full Bench judgement in the Case of Heera Lal (supra).

¶11

Per contra learned counsel for the respondents Chandan Agarwal contends that permission was granted by the respondent no. 3 by order dated 11.01.2019 to fill up one post from SC/ST category and since the selection is contrary to the permission granted by the B.S.A., therefore, the order impugned in the present writ petition is as per law.

¶12

I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

¶13

The fact that there are only four sanctions posts in the cadre of Assistant Teacher is not disputed by the respondents. The full Bench in the case of Heera Lal (supra) has held that where there are only four posts in a cadre no posts can be reserved for SC/ST candidate.

¶14

Further, government order dated 11.06.2015, Annexure-14 to the writ petition, also provides that in case where there are four posts of Assistant Teacher no post can be reserved for SC/ST candidate. The order impugned dated 13.02.2019 rejecting the

¶15

approval to the appointment of petitioner clearly reveals that same has been passed on the premise that selection of the Rubi Sharma is contrary to the order dated 11.01.2019 passed by respondent no.3-District Basic Education Officer whereby it is provided that one post shall be filled up from the candidate belonging to SC/ST category.

¶16

Since there are only four posts in the cadre of Assistant Teacher and no posts can be reserved for SC/ST category, therefore, the order of the respondent no.3 dated 11.01.2019 directing the Committee of Management to fill up one post from scheduled caste category cannot be sustained in law.

¶17

Thus, out of two vacant posts, one post would fall in the general candidate category, therefore, approval to appointment of the petitioner cannot be denied on the ground that selection of petitioner was contrary to the permission given by B.S.A. in its order dated 11.01.2019 as it was to be filled up by a candidate belonging to scheduled caste. Thus for the reasons given above, the order dated 13.02.2019 is not sustainable in law.

¶18

It is further contended by Sri Chandan Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents that proper selection procedure has not been followed by the selection committee in selecting the petitioner.

¶19

The aforesaid contention has been rebutted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner by contending that appointment of one Varun Kumar, who was selected in the same selection, has been approved by the B.S.A., and as such there cannot be any irregularity in selection of petitioner Rubi Sharma.

¶20

It is evident from the record that Varun Kumar in the category of O.B.C. candidate was selected in the same selection in which petitioner was selected and the selection of Varun Kumar has been approved by the B.S.A. by order dated 31.01.2019. Thus, the objection of counsel for the respondents that there is irregularity in the selection of Rubi Sharma is also not sustainable as no such material is placed on record to doubt the selection of Rubi Sharma, more so, when the appointment of other candidate Varun Kumar who has been selected in the same selection has been approved by the B.S.A. by order dated 31.01.2019.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid facts, order dated 11.01.2019 to the extent it directs the Committee of Management to fill up one post of Assistant Teacher by scheduled caste candidate and the order dated 13.02.2019 passed by respondent no.3 District Basic Education Officer, Badaun disapproving the appointment of Rubi Sharma is set aside.

¶22

The Respondent no.3- District Basic Education Officer is directed to pass a fresh order for the approval of the appointment of the petitioner Rubi Sharma in light of observations made above within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶23

With the aforesaid observation, both the writ petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to cost.

¶24

Order Date :- 19.11.2019/AKT

Smt. Ruby Sharma v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ruby Sharma v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Vijay Pratap Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Abhisek Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jai Prakash Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Others

Smt. Hanisa Begam and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Rama Nand Chaudhary and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others