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


Girija Shanker v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 37772 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 14297 (21 August 2007)


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).


Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner.

By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the resolution dated 23.7.2007 Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Petitioner's case in the writ petition is that  the petitioner joined  as Class- IV employee on 10.6.1987 which was also approved. The post of Assistant clerk fell vacant on 31.1.2007 on which post petitioner claims right of promotion. The Committee of Management passed resolution dated 23.7.2007 taking the view that the respondent no. 4 Ramesh Chandra Bhartiya  who is working in the institution on supernumerary post with effect from 1.2.1992, has been directed to be absorbed.  Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the resolution contended that the post is reserved for Scheduled Caste category candidate and the respondent no. 4 could not have been absorbed  on the said post.  Regulation 106 of Chapter III  of the   Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 provides that  supernumerary post  shall be treated to be created  till the vacancy in the said institution or in any other institution in the district is available.  As soon as the vacancy arises the  supernumerary post  shall automatically  come to an end.  Present is case where the respondent no. 4 who was working  on a supernumerary post  has been absorbed on the vacancy which came into existence on 31.1.2007.  The question of applying the rule of reservation  on such vacancy does not arise.  The person posted on supernumerary post  has rightly been absorbed. There is no error in the order warranting any interference.

The writ petition lack merit and is dismissed.  




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.