Allahabad High Court
Meenu Rani vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 July, 2024
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:107545-DB
Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 560 of 2024
Appellant :- Meenu Rani
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Anay Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Mishra,C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant and learned Standing Counsel.
2. Present special appeal has been preferred assailing the validity of the judgment and order dated 30.04.2024 passed in Writ-A No.56366 of 2005 (Meenu Rani v. State of U.P. & Ors.), which, for ready reference, is quoted as under:-
"1. Heard Sri Anay Kumar Srivastava, counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Bushra Maryam, counsel for the respondent.
2. The petitioner is a women candidate who had applied for appointment to Class-III post in the judgeship of Basti, which was advertised vide notification dated 5.12.2004. Reservation in the aforesaid selection was provided to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and members of other Backward Classes. In the advertisement, no reservation was provided to the women candidate. The petitioner was not selected for appointment and, therefore, the present petition was filed contending that the petitioner was entitled to be considered for appointment against 20 percent reservation for female candidates, which has been provided by the Government Order dated 26.2.1999.
3. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is based on an information given by the Central Public Information Officer of the High Court that the Government Order dated 26.2.1999 regarding 20 percent reservation for women candidate was enforced by the administrative department of this Court on 10.4.2004, the date of meeting of the Hon'ble Full Court. On the basis of the aforesaid information, counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was entitled to be considered in the 20 percent seats to be reserved for women candidates as the examinations were held in pursuance to the advertisement dated 5.12.2004 i.e. after the date of the meeting of the Hon'ble Full Court.
4. Repealing the contention of counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Bushra Maryam representing the District Judge, Basti, argued that the Government Order dated 26.2.1999 and the consequential, 20 percent reservation for women candidate, which was adopted by the Full Court, was only for direct recruitment in the High Court Establishment and it was not for appointment in judgeship, Basti.
5. I have considered the submissions of counsel for the parties.
6. The minutes of the Hon'ble Full Court dated 10.4.2004 as produced in the supplementary affidavit are reproduced as below:
"Considered the report dated 4.3.2004 of the Committee comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Ambwani and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan along with note dated 2.8.2003 of O.S.D. (Establishment) in the matter.
Resolved that the report of the aforesaid Committee for reservation in the direct recruitment in the High Court Establishment be accepted with modification that the reservation to the Sports persons will be admissible as per Rule 23-A of the Allahabad High Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1976 only to the sports persons of 'National Level'."
7. It is apparent that the Government Order dated 26.2.1999 and the consequential, 20 percent reservation for women candidate was enforced only for direct recruitment in the High Court Establishment and not for appointment in District judgeship.
8. In view of the aforesaid, there is no force in the contention of counsel for the petitioner.
9. The petition lacks merits and is dismissed."
3. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and upon perusing the impugned judgment and order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an Intra-Court Special Appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity. As such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.
4. In view of above, the special appeal sans merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.7.2024
SP/
