Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Sardar Singh v. State Of U.P. And Another - WRIT - A No. 26971 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 9828 (18 May 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).


Court No. 34

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26971 of 2006

Sardar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.


Hon. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 26.4.2006 passed by the U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad intimating the petitioner that her application form for appearing at the main examination of Uttar Pradesh Sammilit Rajya/Pravar Adhinasth Seva (Vishesh Chayan) Mukhya Pariksha, 2004 on the ground that the petitioner is a resident of State of Uttaranchal and he had not produced the caste certificate issued by the Competent Authority to avail the benefit of the reservation.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.A. Qadeer, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the advertisement had been issued in 2004 after the creation of the Uttaranchal State, the vacancies, which were required to be filled pursuant to the said advertisement, were backlog vacancies, which had occurred prior to the creation of the Uttaranchal State, therefore, the petitioner was not obliged to submit a caste certificate issued by the Authority in the State of U.P.

We are unable to accept the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, the advertisement was issued after the creation of the State of Uttaranchal. It was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to produce the caste certificate issued by the Competent Authority and not to rely upon the certificate issued by the authorities of the State of U.P. in the year 1984. The said certificate of 1984, could not, therefore, be considered by the U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and accordingly there is no infirmity in the order passed by the U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad rejecting the application form of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in N.T. Bevin Katti, etc. Vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission and others, AIR 1990 SC 1233 wherein the Apex Court has held that the vacancies are to be filled up as per the law relevant at the time of advertisement and the date of occurrence of vacancies may also play an important role. However, that can be determined only from the terms contained in the advertisement. The Apex Court has observed as under:-

"The legislative intent is ascertained either by express provision or by necessary implication, if the amended Rules are not retrospective in nature the selection must be regulated in accordance with the Rules and orders which were in force on the date of advertisement. Determination of this question largely depends on the facts of each case having regard to the terms and conditions seat out in the advertisement and the relevant Rules and orders."

On the basis of the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it has been contended by Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner that the vacancies advertised by the U.P. Public Service Commission in 2004 had been the backlog vacancies which occurred prior to the creation of the Uttaranchal State and, therefore, the petitioner had a right to be considered against the said vacancies though he may not belong to the reserve category of the State of U.P.

The petitioner, for the reasons best known to him, has not placed the copy of the advertisement or any other document to show that the vacancies had occurred prior to 2000 though advertised in 2004. Thus it is neither desirable nor permissible to probe the controversy raised by Sri Dhananjay Awasthi any further.

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

Dt/- 18.5.2006



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


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 |

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