IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SIDDHARTHA VARMA, YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Padmakar Dixit - Appellant
Versus
State of UP And Others - Respondents
Special Appeal No. 432 of 2024
Decided On : 02-01-2025
(A) Uttar Pradesh Public Service (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993 - Amendment of sub-section (5) of Section 3 - Recruitment process for Assistant Teachers - The appellant's appointment was challenged on grounds of reservation violations; however, the court found that unfilled reserved vacancies could be filled by general candidates post-amendment. (Paras 5, 12, 14)
(B) Employment Law - Validity of appointment - The court emphasized that the burden of proof regarding participation in recruitment lies with the appointing authority, not the candidate. (Paras 11, 14)
Facts of the case:
The appellant applied for the Assistant Teacher position, was appointed after being selected in the second round of counselling, but faced termination due to alleged reservation violations.
Findings of Court:
The termination order was set aside, reinstating the appellant with all consequential benefits due to procedural errors.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the appointment against reserved posts and the burden of proof regarding counselling participation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the amendment to the Act allowed general candidates to fill unfilled reserved vacancies, and the evidence burden lay with the respondents.
Result: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was reinstated.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant and Sri Kushmondeya Shahi, learned counsel appearing for the Board of Basic Education.
2. Instant special appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 1.3.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ-A No.695 of 2023 (Padmakar Dixit vs. State of UP & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant has been dismissed.
3. By a notification dated 16.6.2016, the State Government notified a recruitment of Assistant Teachers in the State of Uttar Pradesh to all the Basic Shiksha Parishad Schools and to that effect, an advertisement was also issued on 27.6.2016. Applications were invited for recruitment in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh between 30.6.2016 to 15.7.2016. In the advertisement, it was provided that in the first round of counselling, a candidate could apply for being appointed as Assistant Teacher only in the district from where he/she had done his/her BTC Training Certificate Course. However, it was provided that in the second round of counselling, a candidate could apply for the remaining unfilled vacancies in any district of Uttar Pradesh. The first round of counselling was held on 16.8.2016 and 17.8.2016. The appellant had passed his BTC Training Certificate Course from district Varanasi and, therefore, he applied for the vacancies as were there in district Varanasi. However, he was unsuccessful in the first round of counselling and, therefore, he applied for the second round of counselling and since there was an option that in the second round of counselling, application may be made for any district of the State, the appellant opted for district Mirzapur and made that district as his first preference. The counselling, which was conducted for district Mirzapur, was so done on 24.8.2016 and when the merit list was prepared, the appellant was placed at serial no.1 of the merit list. Thereafter, the appellant was issued an appointment letter on 27.8.2016 by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Mirzapur and in pursuance thereof, he joined on 6.9.2016. However, on 18.11.2021, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant, stating therein that after completion of the first counselling, 17 posts of Assistant Teacher remained vacant in district Mirzapur, which included 3 posts under vertical reservation of Scheduled Castes and 14 posts under Horizontal Reservation out of which, 2 posts were reserved for Physically Handicapped candidates suffering from visual disability and 2 posts were for candidates suffering from hearing disability, 10 posts were for Ex-servicemen. In the show cause notice, it was stated that since there was no post for General Category candidate, the appellant was wrongly appointed in the second round of counselling. The appellant, replied to the show cause notice and thereafter, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Mirzapur, on 10.3.2022, passed an order for stopping the payment of salary to the appellant. This order was challenged by the appellant by filing of a writ petition, being Writ Petition No.11964 of 2022 (Padmakar Dixit vs. State of UP & Others).
4. However, when the appointment of the appellant itself was held to be invalid by an order dated 2.12.2022, he challenged the same by means of a writ petition, being Writ-A No.695 of 2023. When the said writ petition was dismissed by the order impugned dated 1.3.2024 of a learned Single Judge, the instant appeal was filed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the order of the learned Single Judge, by submitting that the inquiry itself was a belated inquiry, it having commenced after a period of six years of the initial appointment of the appellant. It has further been argued that the appellant was a simple candidate, who had participated in the second round of counselling and was unaware of the fact that the post on which he was being appointed was reserved for Visually Ha
Unfilled reserved vacancies can be filled by general candidates post-amendment to the Act, shifting the burden of proof to the appointing authority.
The court ruled that exclusion from the merit list despite higher scores constitutes arbitrariness, necessitating compliance with prior judicial directions for fair counselling.
Candidates on a merit list do not have an indefeasible right to appointment if they fail to meet the prescribed cut-off marks, emphasizing the need for fair recruitment processes.
The court affirmed that eligibility criteria for reserved positions must be strictly adhered to, ruling against the appointment of an ineligible candidate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that candidates who have secured more marks than the last selected candidates are entitled to be considered for counseling and appointment, especia....
It is well-established that an authority cannot make any selection/appointment beyond the number of posts advertised, even if there were a larger number of posts available than those advertised.
The main legal principle established is the requirement for fairness and equal opportunity in the selection process, as well as the need to address the grievances of candidates who were not part of t....
The court affirmed that appointment claims require direct engagement in the selection process, emphasizing no valid grievances from unlisted candidates based on prior judicial findings.
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.