Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4282 of 2010 Petitioner :- Jai Prakash Kushwaha Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Vimal Chandra Mishra Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Satya Prakash Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in Gandhi
Intermediate College, Patel Nagar, Jhunsi, Allahabad there are only seven
posts of Lecturers out of which three are to be filled in by direct recruitment
and four are to be filled in by promotion. He submits that in view of the law
laid down by this Court in Smt. Pholpati Devi Vs. Smt. Asha Jaiswal and
others 2009 (2) ADJ 90 (DB) and Nem Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others,
Writ Petition No. 7591 of 2009, decided on 02.09.2009 none of the vacancy
on the post of Lecturer in either of the sources of recruitment could have been
reserved for scheduled caste as the same would have gone beyond the
prescribed percentage of reservation under U.P. Public Services (Reservation
for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act,
1994. He further submits that the respondent no. 7 was required to be
appointed in Gandhi Smarak Inter College, Kalyanpur, Allahabad as a Subject
Expert but against such absorption the respondent no. 8 filed Writ Petition
No. 38309 of 2007 which was decided by this Court on 21.08.2007 directing
the committee of management to take appropriate decision on the
representation of petitioner. Instead of there being any decision on the said
representation, the Joint Director of Education, Allahabad passed order dated
23.10.2009 mentioning therein that this Court in its order dated 21.08.2007
has directed for promotion of Sri Adalat Prasad Viswakarma, Assistant
Teacher and, therefore, held that the respondent no. 7 cannot be
accommodated in the said institution. Now the District Inspector of Schools,
Allahabad has passed the impugned order dated 19.12.2009 directing for
absorption of respondent no. 7 in the institution.
Sri Satya Prakash, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 7 informs that
the respondent no. 8 has filed another Writ Petition No. 60349 of 2007
claiming his promotion which is also pending before this Court.
It is evident that so far as this Court is concerned it had not directed for
promotion of respondent no. 8 vide judgement dated 21.08.2007. It is clear
that the Joint Director of Education, Allahabad has misread the said order by
observing that this Court has directed for promotion of respondent no. 8 and
this is how a confusion has been created. It is really surprising that the Joint
Director of Education, Allahabad has misread this Court’s order in such a
manner. Whether this is deliberate or otherwise is a matter of investigation. In
my view the matter required consideration.
Learned Standing Counsel represents respondents no. 1 to 5 and Sri Satya
Prakash, Advocate represents respondent no. 7. They pray for and are granted
two weeks’ time to file counter affidavit.
Issue notice to respondents no. 6 and 8 returnable at an early date. Steps to be
taken within three days. They may also file counter affidavit by the next date
List this matter alongwith Writ Petition No. 60349 of 2007 on 17.02.2010.
Considering the above submission and facts and circumstances of the case,
the operation of the order dated 19.12.2009 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition)
shall remain stayed.