Dismissed

Amita Yadav and 11 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2020WRIA/4997/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the selection of Assistant Teachers alleging reservation violation. The Court held that since petitioners were not in the final select list, had not challenged the list, and claimed no marks above cut-off, there was no occasion for interference.

What did the court decide?

Direction to treat meritorious candidates treated under General Category was not granted.

Amita Yadav and 11 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4997 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Amita Yadav And 11 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Sharma,Ritesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranesh Dutt Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

This writ petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents to treat the meritorious reserved category selected candidates under the General Category, who fulfill all requirements of selection in General Category against sixty nine thousand posts advertised for Assistant Teacher.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that reservation in accordance with applicable Act is not being correctly applied, on account of which, the candidates belonging to Other Backward Caste, who have scored marks above the General Category Candidates, are not being treated in General Category and, therefore, the entire selection process is vitiated.

¶7

The petition is opposed by Sri P.D. Tripathi and learned State Counsel, who points out that none of the petitioners have obtained marks above the cut-off in the respective category for different districts and that the select list is also not challenged. Submission is that in such circumstances, no occasion arises for this Court to interfere in the matter, particularly when the process of recruitment is undergoing for large number of candidates.

¶8

Perusal of the record would go to show that recruitment process for sixty nine thousand vacancies got initiated by the State vide Government Order dated 1st of December, 2018. The Government Order clearly provides that reservation rules as are applicable in the State shall be adhered to while making recruitment. The process of recruitment consisted of a written examination for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in which about 146000 candidates are said to have cleared in different categories. The petitioners are candidates of O.B.C. Category, who have qualified the written examination.

¶9

After taking into consideration the scores of candidates on other counts, the select list is alleged to have been published for different districts showing cut-off marks in various categories which is annexed as Annexure 8 to the writ petition. The total posts as also the cut-off for different category candidates are clearly shown. The petitioners admittedly have not scored marks above the cut-off, nor there is any assertion to that effect in the writ petition.

¶10

The process of recruitment is already going on in different districts. The authorities of the State are expected to adhere to the reservation laws, particularly the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994.

¶11

Merely on the basis of vague and unsubstantiated pleadings the petitioner cannot be permitted to build up a case of violation of reservation laws in the matter of recruitment by the State authorities. In the event there is any violation of reservation laws, it is for the aggrieved person to raise an appropriate grievance before the concerned authority. On the basis of such vague and unsubstantiated allegations the present writ petition is not liable to be entertained, particularly as name of none of the petitioners is included in the final select list. The petitioners otherwise have not challenged the select list and have also not claimed to have scored marks above the cut-off in the respective category. In such circumstances, no interference in the matter is called for.

¶12

The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 10.7.2020 Ranjeet Sahu

Amita Yadav and 11 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amita Yadav and 11 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Vinod Singh and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 13 Others

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

Ashutosh Vs Central Board of Secondary Education and 4 Others

C/M Sri Pooran Ram Prakash Dixit Mahavidyalay and Another Vs State of U P and 4 Others

C/M Life Design School and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Akash Singh Vs Bundelkhand University and 3 Others