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

2011 Supreme(All) 123

SUDHIR AGARWAL
SATENDRA SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Vinod Sinha and Mahesh Sharma for the Petitioner; C.S.C. for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—By means of the impugned order the petitioner, who belongs to OBC, and was selected for class IV post in Adarsh Krishi Inter College, Saraul, District Aligarh, has been declined approval on the ground that the vacancy was unreserved and was also advertised as unreserved vacancy, yet the petitioner, who belongs to OBC, has been selected, which is not permissible in law.

2. It is contended that assumption on the part of the Joint Director of Education, Aligarh that the reserved category candidate cannot be selected against the unreserved vacancy is clearly illegal and contrary to what has been held by this Court in Sanjeev Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2007 (2) ESC 1042 (ALL)(DB) and the Apex Court in Jitendra Kumar Singh and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2010) 3 SCC 119.

3. Learned standing counsel, per contra, attempted to defend the order for the reasons stated in paras 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit, which reads as under:

“7. That in reply to the contents of paragraphs 12 to 16 of the writ petition, it is most respectfully submitted that the District Inspector of Schools has granted permission for filing up the pos














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