Dismissed

Gajraj v. the Deputy Director Education

Allahabad HC27 Jul 2023WRIA/3963/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order rejecting his claim for a reserved Class-IV post. The court held that no material proved the vacancy was reserved for Scheduled Castes as alleged. Contending the interim order was based on a wrong factual premise, the court dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted. Writ petition dismissed in the interest of justice.

Gajraj Vs the Deputy Director Education — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:49445

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3963 of 1999

¶4

Petitioner :- Gajraj Respondent :- The Deputy Director Education Counsel for Petitioner :- B. Godiyal,Ram Raj Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

¶7

A vacancy of Class-IV post came into existence on 31.1.1992 due to retirement of one B. Prasad. The vacancy was advertised in the daily newspaper, inviting applications from the eligible and qualified candidates. In the advertisement, vacancy was not reserved for any of the category. The papers in regard to the selection on Class-IV post were duly submitted in the office of District Inspector of Schools on 1.3.1992. The Principal of the institution is the appointing authority of Class-IV post.

¶8

In the said selection, one Ram Khelawan S/o Sobaran Lal was selected, being placed at serial No.1 and the petitioner was placed at serial No.15 in the select list and a remark was made against the column of the petitioner that he is not eligible in discharging of duties, thus, he was not granted appointment on the Class-IV post.

¶9

The petitioner moved an application on 4.4.1992 alongwith an order passed in Writ Petition No.1817(S/S) of 1992 dated 1.4.1992 and thereafter, approval was accorded to the appointment of Ram Khelawan with the condition that the appointment shall be subject to the decision of Writ Petition No.1817(S/S) of 1992.

¶10

The petitioner in his writ petition, has stated that the Class-IV post was reserved for the Scheduled Caste category candidate and on the said basis, this Court issued direction for consideration of claim of the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner was rejected vide impugned order dated 21/22.4.1999, holding that the appointment of the petitioner was not made against any reserved vacancy for the Scheduled Caste category candidate and in case any post came into existence in the institution, is liable to be filled up by a candidate under Dying in Harness Rules by way of direct

¶11

recruitment, therefore, the claim of the petitioner was rejected.

¶12

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the vacancy was reserved for the Scheduled Caste category candidate, therefore, the appointment of Ram Khelawan is illegal and contrary to the condition laid down in the advertisement. Next submission is that on the basis of interim order, the petitioner is working and has been paid salary and is going to retire within three months, therefore, his right may be saved in the interest of justice.

¶13

The order passed by the Court on 5.8.1999 is being quoted below :-

¶14

"Notices on behalf of opposite parties 1&2 have been accepted by learned standing counsel. Issue notice to opposite parties 3&4 returnable within 3 weeks requiring them to show cause as to why petition be not admitted.

¶15

List immediately thereafter.

¶16

In the meantime, the petitioner shall be allowed to work and shall be paid salary."

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no rational justification in passing the impugned order, holding that the vacancy was not advertised for the Scheduled Caste category candidate and in case there is vacancy, the same shall be filed up by way of appointment under Dying in Harness Rules. Last submission is that the act and action of the respondent is wholly unjustified and without any rational basis.

¶18

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has produced the original record in pursuance to direction issued by this Court.

¶19

After having heard the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record.

¶20

On perusal of the entire writ petition, there is no copy enclosed of the advertisement to establish that the vacancy was advertised for the Scheduled Caste category candidate. The record produced by the learned Standing Counsel also does not disclose the enclosure of the copy of the advertisement to show that the vacancy was reserved for the Scheduled Caste category candidate. In absence of any material to establish that the vacancy was reserved for the Scheduled Caste category candidate, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the vacancy was not reserved for the Scheduled Caste category candidate. The statement made before this Court while obtaining the order dated 10.3.1999, passed in Writ Petition No.1817 (S/S) of 1992

¶21

is based on wrong statement of fact, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of the interim order obtained on the basis of wrong statement of fact.

¶22

On perusal of the material on record, it is well established that the vacancy was not reserved for the Scheduled Caste category candidate, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of any kind that the post was reserved for the Scheduled Caste category candidate and he would have been selected for the appointment.

¶23

In view of the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in the writ petition. The same is accordingly, dismissed .

¶24

Order Date :- 27.7.2023 Gautam

¶25

Digitally signed by :- GAUTAM TECKCHANDANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Gajraj v. the Deputy Director Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajraj v. the Deputy Director Education

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

Shri Lekhpal Vs State of U.P.through Secy.Culture

Anil Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P.through Secy. Secondary Educlation Govt.of U.P.

Smt.Manojini Devi Vs State of U.P.through Secy.Cultural and 2 Ors.

Rama Kant Pandey Vs State of U.P.Thr.Secy Lok Nirman and 4 Ors.

Prem Prakash Vs State of U.P.Thr. Secy Panchyati Raj and 6 Ors.

Nisha Devi Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru D.M. Gonda and 5 Ors.