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

2002 Supreme(All) 428

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
G. P. Mathur and Vineet Saran, JJ.
KULDEEP CHAND KAPOOR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 36146 Of 1998
Decided On : 03/20/2002

Advocates Appeared:
P.R.MAURYA, PRAKASH PADIYA, R.G.PADIA

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment to a position must adhere to the necessary educational qualifications and service requirements, and reservations for specific categories are not applicable to single cadre posts.

Headnote:

Appointment - Educational Qualification - Seniority - Reservation - U. P. Pravidhik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1962 - U. P. Technical Education Gazetted Officers Services Rules, 1990

Fact of the Case:

The writ petition was filed to challenge the appointment of respondent No. 4 as the Head of Department of Composition in the Northern Regional Institute of Printing Technology, Allahabad. The petitioner, being senior to respondent No. 4, contested the appointment on the grounds of lacking necessary educational qualifications and not meeting the service requirement for the position.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that respondent No. 4 did not possess the necessary educational qualification for the post and had not put in the required years of service as a lecturer in the subject of composition. The court also ruled that the reservation for a Scheduled Caste candidate on the post of Head of Department of Composition was invalid and unconstitutional.

Issues: The issues involved the educational qualification and service requirement for the appointment, as well as the validity of the reservation for a Scheduled Caste candidate.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent did not possess the educational qualification and service experience required for the appointment. Additionally, the court ruled that the reservation for a Scheduled Caste candidate on the post of Head of Department of Composition was invalid and unconstitutional as it was a single cadre post.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the appointment of respondent No. 4, and directed the State Government to make a fresh appointment in accordance with the law.

G. P. MATHUR, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing of the order dated 26. 6. 1998 of the State Government by which Sri Chandra Deo Ram, respondent No. 4, was appointed as Head of Department of Composition in the Northern Regional Institute of printing Technology, Allahabad.

( 2 ) THERE is an institute known as the Northern Regional Institute of Printing Technology at allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Institute ). It imparts a three-years course for award of a diploma in printing technology. The Institute is controlled, financed and managed by the State government and is governed by U. P. Pravidhik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1962. The service conditions of the staff of the Institute are governed by the U. P. Technical Education Gazetted officers Services Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the rules), which have been made by the governor of Uttar Pradesh in exercise of power conferred by the proviso of Article 309 to the constitution.

( 3 ) THE petitioner, Kuldeep Chand Kapoor, was appointed as demonstrator in the institute on 28. 9. 1966. He became a junior instructor on 17. 6. 1970 and, thereafter, lecturer in the Department of Composition on 19. 7. 1972. Sri Chandra Deo Ram, respondent No. 4 who belongs to scheduled Caste, was appointed as lecturer in the Department of the Graphic reproduction and lithography on 7. 8. 1982. The petitioner is thus senior to respondent No. 4 by 10 years. By the impugned order dated 26. 6. 1998 the State Government appointed respondent No. 4 as the Head of Department of Composition and it is this order which is the subject-matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

( 4 ) DR. R. G. Padia, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent no. 4 as Head of Department of Composition on three grounds. The first ground is that respondent No. 4 did not possess the necessary educational qualification for the post of Head of department of Composition. The second ground is that he had not put in at least five years of service as lecturer in the subject of composition, which is an essential requirement for promotion to the post of Head of Department. The third ground is that under the relevant service rule, the appointment on the post of Head of Department has to be made on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit and as the petitioner is 10 years senior to respondent No. 4, his appointment is wholly illegal. Sri P. R. Maurya, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, has submitted that Sri chandra Deo Ram holds the same qualification as that of the petitioner and lias put in more than 5 years of service as lecturer as he had been appointed on the said post on 7. 8. 1982 and, therefore, he possesses the necessary qualification for being appointed as the Head of department. He has further submitted that under the roster made by the State Government, the post of Head of Department of Composition had been- reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate and respondent No. 4 being the seniormost lecturer in the Institute belonging to Scheduled Caste, he was rightly appointed as the Head of Department of Composition. Learned standing counsel, who has appeared for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (State of U. P. and Director, Technical Education)has supported the stand taken by Sri P. R. Maurya, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. He has also submitted that as per the roster, the post of Head of Department of Composition was reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate and, consequently, the petitioner could not claim appointment on the said post on the ground that he is senior to respondent No. 4.

( 5 ) IN order to appreciate the contention raised at the Bar, it will be convenient to notice the relevant provisions of the Rules 3 (i), 4, 5, 6 and 22 of the rules read as follows : rule 3 (i)--"service" means the Uttar Pradesh Technical Education Gazetted Officers Service which covers all the group a gazetted posts in the Direct



















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
whatsapp-icon Back to top