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

2008 Supreme(All) 2678

SUDHIR AGARWAL, S.RAFAT ALAM
PHOLPATI DEVI – Appellant
Versus
ASHA JAISWAL – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
M.M. Sahai and V. Singh for the Appellant; B.P. Singh, Namwar Singh, Sanjiv Singh, S.C. for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

By the Court.—Heard Sri M.M. Sahai for the appellant, Sri Sanjeev Singh for respondent No. 1 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. This intra Court appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 22.4.2004 passed by Hon’ble Single Judge by which it has allowed the writ petition of petitioner-respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent No. 1’) observing that at the time when recruitment in question was made, the Statute did not provide any reservation in promotion for Scheduled Castes, scheduled tribes and, therefore, the appointment of respondent No. 4 treating the vacancy reserved for Scheduled Castes was illegal.

3. Sri Sahai vehemently contended that reservation in promotion in the educational institutions was provided by Government Order dated 12.7.1978 and the same has not been superseded by any subsequent statutory provision. Hence, it was rightly provided by the Management and the Hon’ble Single Judge has erred in law in observing otherwise.

4. Having heard rival submissions and perusing the record, we find that there were total seven posts of Lecturers sanctioned in the institution, namely, Zila Panchayat Balika Inter College









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