- (1.) A writ petition was filed by the first respondent seeking to challenge an order dated 28 November 1998 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Meerut refusing sanction to his appointment. Sanction was refused on the ground that the post ought to have been reserved for a reserved category candidate and a reserved category candidate had not been selected.
(2.) The first respondent belongs to the open category. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 29 October 2015 held that there was one post of Assistant Teacher against which the first respondent was appointed through the process of selection and hence there can be no reservation for a solitary post. The second finding of the learned Single Judge was that in view of the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in Heera Lal vs. State of U.P. and others, 2010 3 ESC 2091 , there would be no occasion to provide a reservation for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes in a situation where the number of posts is less than five, in order to implement the 21 % reservation.
(3.) The submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellant is that the learned Single Judge was not correct in coming to the conclusion that there was a solitary post available though, as a matter of fact, there were four sanctioned posts of teachers. The second submission which was urged was that, as a matter of fact, the reservation in this case was not for the Scheduled Castes (to which the principle laid down in the judgment of the Full Bench would apply) but was for the OBC category. It was urged that in the case of a reservation for OBC candidates, which is 27%, one seat out of the four sanctioned posts would have to be reserved.;