High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Kumbh Karan Singh v. C/M Gayatri Devi Junior High School Thru' Manager & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 34 of 2007  RD-AH 2349 (13 February 2007)
Court No. 34
Special Appeal No. (34) of 2007
Kumbh Karan Singh Vs.Committee of Management and others
Hon. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.
This Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order rendered by a learned Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 30605 of 1998 by which the writ petition has been disposed of with the following directions:-
"In view of the foregoing discussions, the order of District Basic Education Officer dated 18th December, 1998 in so far as it confines to one post of Assistant Teacher meant for general category candidate is set-aside. The District Basic Education Officer shall consider the selection dated 23rd August, 1998 against one post belonging to general category candidate and take a decision on merits withing a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. One out of two posts which is reserved for scheduled caste category candidate shall be advertised again in accordance with the procedure prescribed under 1978 Rules after due approval of the District Basic Education Officer."
The writ petition had been filed for quashing the entire selection process held on 23.8.1988 and a direction was also sought to regularise the services of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in Gayatri Devi, Junior High School Sangipur Soraon, district Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'Institution') and to pay him regular salary. The said Institution is a recognized Institution under the provisions of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and is receiving grant-in-aid. There are four posts of Assistant Teacher in the said Institution. Two posts had been filled up by Babadin Yadav belonging to the Other Backward category and Rudra Prasad Misra belonging to the general category. The District Basic Education Officer granted permission for filling up the two vacant posts of Assistant Teacher by the letter dated 13.6.1996. The Committee of Management had advertised the vacancies in the new-papers on 7.8.1998. The Selection Committee made recommendations which were forwarded to the District Basic Education Officer who, by his letter dated 23.9.1998, asked the Manager to explain whether the reservation rules had been followed while making selection and whether sufficient time had been given to the candidates pursuant to the advertisement and the interview letters. The District Basic Education Officer disapproved the selection and directed the vacancies to be filled up as per the reservation rules. This order was challenged by one Rajpati Pandey by filing Writ Petition No. 5607 of 1999 contending that as a general candidate, he had obtained the highest marks and, therefore, even if one post was to be reserved, the other was for general category and there was no infirmity in his appointment. The petitioner, however, sought the quashing of the entire selection and for a direction upon the Manager to issue appointment letter to him. His contention was that in the selection the mandatory provisions pertaining to the selection had not been followed and that he was not give correct quality point marks.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Sarvasri Anil Srivastava, R.K. Ojha and the learned Standing Counsel appear for the respondents.
The learned Judge considered as to whether the selection was liable to be disapproved in its entirety on the ground of non-observance of the reservation rules or whether the appointment made for the general category post under the said selection could be saved. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that one post was meant for general category and the other for the Scheduled Caste and, therefore, the advertisement in respect of the general category post could be saved. The case of the petitioner-appellant could at best be confined to the general category candidate post and his contention that he should have been awarded six marks for High School Supplementary Examination instead of four was not accepted as that was not likely to change the result of the selection. The other reliefs claimed by the appellant were not granted.
We find no infirmity in the judgment and the order of the learned Judge and indeed none could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned Judge was justified in upholding the selection in so far as it related to the general category post and the claim of the petitioner was repelled on the ground that the candidate selected had obtained higher marks and even if two more marks were given to the appellant, the result would not change. Learned counsel for the appellant did not press before us the relief for regularisation of his services.
The Special Appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.