- (1.) This special appeal arises from a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 26th November 2013 by which a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the appellant had been dismissed.
(2.) The selection was for the Itinerant Teachers ( Mentally Retarded Group).
(3.) The grievance of the appellant was that the reservation has been wrongly applied to the six posts earmarked for the said group. From these six posts it is alleged that only two posts were allotted for General Category candidates while four posts were reserved (two for Other Backward Category and two for Scheduled Caste candidates). The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition after relying on the following submission made on behalf of the District Basic Education Officer; "In reply Sri B.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent, District Basic Education Officer, Azamgarh has referred to paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit and has submitted that there are total 25 posts earmarked for Itinerant Teacher (MR Group). As per the reservation policy, 6 posts would go to the Schedule Caste candidate, 7 post would go to OBC candidates and 12 posts would go to General Category candidates. As against 25 posts, from 19 working strength, there were 4 of the Scheduled Caste Category, 5 of the OBC Category and 10 of General Category and in such circumstances the remaining 6 posts for which selection has been made, it has to fulfil the reservation for the entire cadre on 25 posts by filling 2 posts from Scheduled Caste, 2 posts from OBC and 2 from General Category which will complete the reservation quota. Selections have accordingly been made and there is no illegality.";