SUNEET KUMAR
Subhash Chandra Maurya – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Kumar, J.
1. Heard learned counsels appearing for the petitioners in the batch of connected writ petitions, learned counsels appearing for the respondents and learned standing counsel for the State-respondents and perused the material placed on record.
2. Learned counsels appearing for the petitioners in the instant writ petition and the other batch of writ petitions submit that the facts, inter se, parties are similar and can be decided by a common judgment.
3. For the sake of convenience, the facts stated in the Writ Petition No. 8117 of 2021 is being referred to for deciding the writ petitions.
4. Petitioner was admitted to Basic Training Course under Physically Handicapped Quota (in short 'P.H.') on the strength of P.H. certificate dated 12.09.2006, issued by the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Sonbhadra, wherein, it is noted that petitioner is having 60% hearing problem (deafness). The petitioner came to be appointed as Assistant Teacher in Primary School, run and managed by second respondent-Basic Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh on 30.06.2011, under the other backward class category (OBC). Thereafter, on assessing the work, performance and conduct of the petitioner
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.