PUTTI LAL Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (HIGHER EDUCATION) & OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-2013-9-332
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on September 19,2013

PUTTI LAL Appellant
VERSUS
Director Of Education (Higher Education) And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. By means of the present writ petition the prayer is to issue writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 2.8.2013 issued by the Regional Higher Education Officer, Agra (annexure-9 to the writ petition) and further prayer is to issue writ of mandamus commanding the respondents forthwith grant appointment to the petitioner as class IV employees in A.K.Post Graduate College Shikohabad, District Firozabad affailiated with Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Agria which is covered under the provision of U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 and the rules framed thereunder.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the post for selection of class IV employee was published in Danik Jagran on 6.12.2001 and in Amarujala on the same day. The applications were invited for appointment of class IV employees. The principal of the college also sent requisition to the District Employment Officer, Firozabad asking the name of persons registered in the office. It was specified in the advertisement that two posts were for general class, one post was for safai karmchari to be reserved for schedule caste, one post for O.B.C. It was further specified that reservation would be effected in accordance with roster issued by the State Government for the purposes of the reservation. The four post was advertised including two posts for general class IV and two posts of reserved category to SC/OBC. The petitioner no.1 belongs to schedule caste and petitioner no.3 belongs to OBC and 2 & 4 belong to general category. Advertisement and selection was subject to the decision of the writ petition filed by those class IV employee who were working and claiming their appointment. Subsequently those writ petition no.52923/2000 and 13627/01 were dismissed for want of prosecution but no restoration application has been filed. The petitioner was appointed and his name was recommended. However by impugned order dated 2.8.2001 the approval was refused by Regional Higher Education Officer on the ground that the writ petition was filed by two of the class IV namely Uma Shanker Pandey and Arjun Singh for one post of library peon. Before approval was given, the post was advertised and reservation for OBC was not mentioned in the advertisement and there was no compliance of the roster of the reservation.
(3.) He submitted that so for as the sanction and permission for appointment is concerned, the post was advertised on 6.12.2001 and for that one post of lab bearer the last date for submission of the application was 28.12.2001 and approval was granted on 12.12.2001, hence the objection is hyper technical. However, regarding other objection, the post was advertised and roster was considered for the reservation. The petitioner no.1 is schedule caste. No.3 is OBC and 2&3 are general category and as such the petitioners were entitled to be appointed through selection whose names were recommended by the selection committee for appointment and as such the direction be issued for appointment.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.