Allahabad High Court
Raja Ram Tripathi vs State Of U.P.& Others on 4 July, 2012
Bench: B. Amit Sthalekar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 28
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 41421 of 2006
Petitioner :- Raja Ram Tripathi
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Lakshmi Kant Trigunait
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,A.K.Yadav,R.P. Dubey,R.P. Yadav,Surendra Singh,Survendra Singh
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 27.7.2006 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly (DIOS).
There is an Institution known as Rashtriya Krishi Avam Udyog Inter College, Sirauli, Bareilly (the Institution). The Institution is governed by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the regulations framed thereunder. The Salaries of the Teachers and Staff are also governed by the U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees ) Act, 1971.
According to the petitioner in the Institution there are 7 posts of Lecturers of the subjects, namely, Economics, Hindi, English, Geography, Arts, Mathematics and History. The case of the petitioner is that the post of Lecturer History was held by one Shri Devendra Swaroop Gupta, who was holding the post under the 50% promotee quota in general category. Devendra Swaroop Gupta retired on 30.6.2006. In the meantime by an order dated 1.7.2006 the petitioner was allotted the subject of History for teaching class 11th and 12th and he has been teaching as such w.e.f. 1.7.2006. The case of the petitioner further is that on 28.7.2006 one Prem Prakash claiming himself to be a direct recruit candidate on the post of Lecturer History in the schedule caste category made a request to the Principal of the Institution to issue appointment letter in his favour. The petitioner became apprehensive and submitted his objections on 28.7.2006. His case is that the post of Lecturer History was to be filled under the promotee quota in the general category and secondly no requisition was ever made for making direct recruitment on the said post and, therefore, the question of issuing a letter of appointment in favour of Shri Prem Prakash as a direct recruit candidate did not arise.
I have heard Shri Laxmit Kant Trigunait, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1,2 and 4, Shri A.K. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3 and Shri Suresh Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 6. No one appears for the respondent no. 7 though the case has been taken up in the revised list.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the vacancy of the post of Lecturer History in the Institution occurred on account of the retirement of Sri Devendra Swaroop Gupta. Sri Devendra Swaroop Gupta was holding the said post in the category of 50% promotee quota and the petitioner being teacher of History alone could be considered for the appointment on the said post in the promotee quota.
Rebutting the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel in his counter affidavit stated that on 30.6.2006 two posts fell vacant, namely, Lecturer Geography and Lecturer History. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that one Shri Radhey Shyam Maurya who was at sl. no. 3 of the seniority list was entitled for promotion as Lecturer Geography whereas the petitioner was at sl. no. 9 and, therefore, he could not have been considered for promotion. Alongwith the counter affidavit a chart has been filed as Annexure-3 at page 15 which clearly shows that the post of Lecturer Geography was a direct recruitment post, whereas the post of Lecturer History was a post in the promotee quota.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner further is that as on 30.6.2006 when the vacancy occurred the reservation quota in the Institution was already full inasmuch as out of the three working Lecturers one was from OBC category and another was from scheduled caste category and the third post was occupied by a general category. The submission further is that even otherwise as against 7 posts of Lecturers the reservation quota for scheduled caste could only be one post under the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation For Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (the Act of 1994) read with the Uttar Pradesh Admission to Educational Institutions (Reservation For Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 2006 (the Act of 2006) and, therefore, the vacancy of the post of Lecturer History in any case could not have been filled up by a scheduled caste candidate.
Section 3(1)(a) of the Act of 1994 provides for 21% reservation in the case of scheduled caste, which reads as under:
"3(1) .....................................
(a) in the case of Scheduled Castes Twenty one per cent;"
Similarly, Section 4(1)(a) of the Act of 2006 provides 21% reservation for scheduled caste, which reads as under:
"4(1) ................................
(a) in the case of Scheduled Castes Twenty one per cent;"
Thus, from the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the perusal of the documents on record, the two folds submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that (i) the post of Lecturer History falls in the promotee quota and (ii) the post could not have been filled up through a scheduled caste candidate since there was already one scheduled caste candidate working and the quota of reservation for the scheduled caste category was full, is clearly established to be correct. The above facts have not seriously been disputed by the learned standing counsel, particularly in view of their own document filed as Annexure-3 to the counter affidavit.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 27.7.006 directing the Manager of the Institution to fill up the post of Lecturer History by the direct recruit candidate-respondent no. 7 who is a scheduled caste candidate on the face of it is illegal, arbitrary and unjustifiable and cannot survive. The writ petition is allowed and the order dated 27.7.2006 is quashed.
The petitioner is stated to be working on the post of Lecturer History w.e.f. 1.7.2006, which is also not disputed by the learned standing counsel and, since his promotion on the said post has been held to be valid he shall be entitled for payment of salary as per Rules.
There shall be no order as to cost.
Order Date :- 4.7.2012
o.k.
