Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NEELAM versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Neelam v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 47455 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 3302 (27 February 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Writ Petition No. 47455 of 2006

Hon. S.N. Srivastava, J.

Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the facts are not disputed to this extent that 2% seats out of total seats are reserved for the wards of Ex-Army Personnel.  He further urged that petitioner belongs to Scheduled Casts and is ward of Ex-Army Personnel and is entitled to be admitted against the vacancy filled up by admitting one Surendra Kumar Kawat belonging to Scheduled Tribe, who is not a ward of Ex-Army Personnel.  It was further urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is the only candidate entitled to be considered against the seat reserved for ward of Ex-Army Personnel.

In reply to the same Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for Opp. Party, urged that there is 2% vertical reservation for the Scheduled Tribe and Surendra Kumar Kawat who belong to the Scheduled Tribe category was rightly admitted against 2% quota reserved for Scheduled Tribe.   He further urged that petitioner not belonging to Scheduled Tribe category was rightly not considered for admission against this quota and Surendra Kumar Kawat is not a party to the writ petition.

In rejoinder, Sri  A.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner refering to the Information Brochure, appended as Annexure-I to the writ petition, urged that in case any candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe is not available for the vacancy against 2% quota of Ex-Army Personnal of Scheduled Tribe, the same may be filled up from a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste.

In view of arguments of learned counsel for the parties, certain facts are required to be verified which are as under:-

1.What are the total number of Seats in C.P.M.T.-2006 out of which total number of seats allocated to different categories, that is, for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Backward Class, General Category, Dependent of Freedom Fighter, Dependent of Ex-Army Personnel, Physically Handicapped and Female quota.

2.List of the student admitted against different reserved categories mentioned above and further list of students admitted against the 2% quota fixed for wards of Ex-Army Personnel, if any.

3.Total number of students admitted in Scheduled Tribe quota  in different Medical Colleges in State of Uttar Pradesh except Surendra Kumar Kawat.

4.Whether Surendra Kumar Kawat, who was earlier admitted in B.D.S. Course in first counselling appeared in second counselling with 'No Objection' of the Principal of that College.

List on 8th March, 2007.

Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp. Party within 48 hours.

27.2.2007/bgs/-


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.