Bacchu Singh vs State of U.P. and others

A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Shri Vashistha Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.B. Singh for respondent No. 5 and learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4.

The petitioner is a class-IV employee of Sri Radha Bihari Inter College, Barasana, Mathura, which is a recognized and aided institution governed by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Regulations framed thereunder.

The criteria for promotion is being invoked by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is entitled for promotion against a class-Ill vacant post under Regulation 2 of Chapter III of the 1921 Act.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner was forwarded by the Committee of Management to the District Inspector of Schools, who rejected the same vide impugned order dated 23.5.2007 on the ground that the post claimed by the petitioner is reserved for the scheduled caste candidates.

Shri Vashistha Tiwari further contends that the impugned order proceeded on an erroneous calculation inasmuch as the provisions of U.P. Act No. 4 of 1994 cannot be employed in order to extend the benefit of reservation to the extent of 21% keeping in view the admitted fact that there are 4 posts of class-III in the institution. He relies on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Heera Lai v. State of U.P.1

Shri S.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5 and learned Standing Counsel both have placed their submissions on the strength of the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Mahendra Kumar Gond v. DIOS,2 which has already been overruled by the Full Bench decision referred to herein above They submit that reservation has to be provided for.

I have considered the matter, which is squarely covered by the Full Bench decision in Heera Lal case (supra), wherein it has been held that the been of the reservation to scheduled castes can only be provided for if there are five, more vacant posts in the cadre. If the posts are less than 5, then reservation to the extent of 21% cannot be enforced as provided for in U.P. Act of 1994.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.5.2007 is liable to and is hereby quashed.

The claim of the petitioner shall be forwarded by the Committee of Management to the District Inspector of Schools for according permission, who shall proceed to pass orders thereon. The Committee of Management shall f0r. ward the documents within fifteen days from today and the District Inspector of Schools shall pass orders within four weeks thereafter and communicate the; same to the petitioner. In case any clarification is required by DIOS, the petitioner shall be put to notice for the same.

The writ petition is allowed.

No costs.