Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. SANGITA SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Sangita Singh v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 25531 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 7263 (4 April 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 10

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25531 of 2004

Smt. Sangita Singh                        ----                   Petitioner

Vs.

State of U.P. and others            ------               Respondents.

----

Hon'ble V.C.Misra, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in-spite of time being granted earlier and lastly on 27.1.2005. On the joint request of the learned counsel for the parties this writ petition is being decided finally at the admission stage itself in terms of the provisions of Chapter XXII Rule 2, IInd Proviso of the Rules of Court, 1952.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing the respondents to ensure compliance of reservation relating to the physically handicapped category as provided in the Uttar Pradesh Public Service (Reservation for Physically Handicapped Dependants of freedom Fighter and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993 and further for a direction to the respondents to provide reservation for physically handicapped person in the advertisement of Special B.T.C. training course of 2004 and also provide relaxation in age to the petitioner who belongs to the physically handicapped category.

The grievance of the petitioner is that though she is fully eligible and qualified for special B.T.C. training course, 2004 which was advertisement by the respondents and against which she has applied for under the physically handicapped category but the respondents are not providing relaxation in age for physically handicapped persons. The contention of the petitioner is that there is already a statutory provision for reservation to physically handicapped category, dependants of freedom fighter and Ex-service men but without any reason or cause the respondents have left out the provision for reservation to physically handicapped category.

In a similar and identical matter this Court has occasion to hear the arguments at length and gave its decision in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29494 of 2004, Sandhaya Jain Vs. State of U.P. and others wherein it has been held that non providing of age relaxation benefit to physically handicapped category candidate is clearly arbitrary and unjustifiable and as such it was directed that candidates who had applied for consideration of their candidature as physically handicapped category candidate qua the same age relaxation benefit be accorded as per existing provisions. In this decision it has been made clear that candidates from physically handicapped category who have already been selected and sent for training, their candidature in no way should be disturbed.

Looking into the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find that the above said decision is fully applicable to the present case. Accordingly this writ petition is allowed in terms of the judgment and order dated 18.3.2004 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29494 of 2004, Sandhya Jain Vs. State of U.P. and others with the direction that the petitioner, being a physically handicapped person, who comes under physically handicapped category, shall be accorded the same age relaxation benefit as per existing provisions without disturbing any candidatures of those physically handicapped persons who have already been selected and sent for training. There will be no order as to costs.

Dt. 04.04.2006

Kdo (wp 25531/ 2004)


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.