SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(SC) 1212

B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, S.S.NIJJAR
STATE OF U. P. – Appellant
Versus
SANGAM NATH PANDEY – Respondent


JUDGMENT

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh challenging the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in Special Appeal No.1202 of 1 2006 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court observed that the action of the State in treating 367 vacancies belonging to the reserved category as backlog vacancies was legally not justified and further issued a direction to the State Government to declare the result afresh in respect of these vacancies as if they are not backlog vacancies and that appointments may be offered in terms of the roster provided under notification dated 25th May, 2002 issued in exercise of powers under Section 3 (5) of the U.P Act No. 4 of 1994.

2. In order to appreciate the factual and legal controversies raised in this matter, it would be necessary to notice the various legislative provisions which govern the field of reservation in Public Services, in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Initially, the reservation in public services in the State of Uttar Pradesh was regulated through various Government orders, issued from time to time. The Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Sched










































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top