Dismissed

Birjesh Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 13 Others

Allahabad HC1 Feb 2021WRIA/8981/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge dismissed a writ petition challenging the result of a Constable recruitment in U.P. The Court held that candidates above 25 years were ineligible for the 5% horizontal Home Guard reservation. The relaxation for vertical categories could not be extended to horizontal reservations. Thus, the petition was deemed devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed being devoid of merits.

Birjesh Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8981 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Birjesh Kumar And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 13 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Seemant Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all four petitioners herein had applied against the advertisement-in-question claiming quota of being in service as Home guard in the State of U.P. Online application forms of four petitioners have been placed before the Court. The contention is that they were not considered in the horizontal quota of Home guard as per conditions in the advertisement. The prayer is, thus, for quashing of the result dated 2.3.2020 for selection on the post of Constable in Civil Police and Constable PAC, Direct Recruitment, 2018.

¶7

Contradicting the version of the petitioners, it is submitted by the learned standing counsel that as per Clause 5.7 of the notification dated 16.11.2018, the petitioners being above 25 years of age were not entitled for consideration in the quota of Homeguard. There is no dispute about the fact that all four petitioners were above 25 years of age on the last date of submission of the application form.

¶8

Clause 5.7 of the notification dated 16.11.2018 reads as under:

¶9

5-7&gkexkMs ~lZ

¶10

gksexkMZl dks 05 izfr'kr dk {kSfrt vkj{k.k dk ykHk mlh n'kk esa izkIr gksxk tc os bl HkrhZ gsrq vU;Fkk vgZ gks] mudh vk;q U;wure 18 o"kZ o vf/kdre 25 o"kZ gks rFkk vkosnu dh vfUre frfFk dks mUgksaus gksexkMZl esa de ls de rhu o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ dh yh gksA

¶11

A perusal thereof indicates that for providing horizontal reservation of 5% to Home Guards, the eligibility conditions have been mentioned therein which provide an age bracket of 18 years to 25 years. There is no challenge to the said notification.

¶12

Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the relaxation of 5% in age has been given to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled

¶13

Tribes and OBC candidates. Such a relaxation had also to be given to the candidates who had applied for Home guard quota under Clause 5.7 of the notification.

¶14

The Court may note that the relaxation in the quota provided for the vertical category of reservation cannot be extended to the horizontal reservation category.

¶15

The writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merits. Order Date :- 1.2.2021 Harshita

Birjesh Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 13 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Birjesh Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 13 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Jee and 16 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Naresh Nigam and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

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

Avinash Kumar Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Shams Tabrez Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others