Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Sujeet Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Sujeet Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Oct 27, 2010
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/918332

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 964 of 2010
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sujeet Kumar Singh

Advocate Indrasen Singh Tomar, Adv

Respondent

State of U.P. and Others

Advocate C.S.C.; Balwant Singh, Advs

Excerpt

1. heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent no.6 and the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4. 2. the appellant claims that he was selected and appointed under the physically handicapped category as assistant clerk in the institution known as vedic dharam inter college, dumri niwas, sahjanwan, district gorakhpur, which is an institution governed by the provisions of the uttar pradesh intermediate education act, 1921 and the regulations framed thereunder. 3. learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant having battled thrice, ultimately succeeded in getting an order from this court directing the district inspector of schools to examine the claim of the appellant. 4. the district inspector of schools thereafter has rejected the claim of the appellant on ground that his claim cannot be accepted, as reservation under the physically handicapped category could not be applied against three available posts in the institution. the learned single judge has upheld the aforesaid order, hence this appeal. 5. we have gone through the judgment of the learned single judge and find that the writ petitioner-appellant has been non-suited on the ground that reservation under the physically handicapped category could not be granted in respect of the post in question. learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out that the appellant was otherwise eligible to be appointed to the post in question. 6. it is undisputed that there are only three posts in the institution. the question of reservation against the said post does not arise keeping in view the fact that only two percent reservation in favour of physically handicapped category is available. the said percentage cannot be applied against a single post that is available in a three post cadre. 7. in view of aforesaid, the findings recorded by the learned single judge cannot faulted with. 8. the appeal has not merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent no.6 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4.

2. The appellant claims that he was selected and appointed under the physically handicapped category as Assistant Clerk in the institution known as Vedic Dharam Inter College, Dumri Niwas, Sahjanwan, District Gorakhpur, which is an institution governed by the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the regulations framed thereunder.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant having battled thrice, ultimately succeeded in getting an order from this Court directing the District Inspector of Schools to examine the claim of the appellant.

4. The District Inspector of Schools thereafter has rejected the claim of the appellant on ground that his claim cannot be accepted, as reservation under the physically handicapped category could not be applied against three available posts in the institution. The learned Single Judge has upheld the aforesaid order, hence this appeal.

5. We have gone through the judgment of the learned Single Judge and find that the writ petitioner-appellant has been non-suited on the ground that reservation under the physically handicapped category could not be granted in respect of the post in question. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out that the appellant was otherwise eligible to be appointed to the post in question.

6. It is undisputed that there are only three posts in the institution. The question of reservation against the said post does not arise keeping in view the fact that only two percent reservation in favour of physically handicapped category is available. The said percentage cannot be applied against a single post that is available in a three post cadre.

7. In view of aforesaid, the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge cannot faulted with.

8. The appeal has not merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial