Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3331 (ALL)

SUJEET KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-10-27

A.P.SAHI, F.I.REBELLO

body2010
JUDGMENT By the Court.—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. In view of aforesaid, the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge cannot faulted with. 7. The appeal has not merit and is accordingly dismissed. —————