Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3449 (ALL)

GANGA RAM v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-11-10

A.P.SAHI, F.I.REBELLO

body2010
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Rajesh Prasad Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The order of the learned Single Judge impugned allows the writ petition partially holding that the provisions of the Reservation act will not apply in view of the law laid down in Heera Lal v. State of U.P. and others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51617 of 2009, decided on 9-7-2010. The learned Single Judge further directed that the Committee of Management shall now in the strict compliance of the provisions of Regulation-2(2) of Chapter-III of U.P. Act No. 2 of 1921 proceed to reassess the candidature of those who are eligible for being considered for promotion. 3. Sri Yadav contented that the judgment in the case of Heera Lal v. State of U.P. and others (supra) would not apply, as the decision had been given earlier by the Joint Director of Education, i.e. prior to the judgment of the full bench. 4. The aforesaid contention of Sri Yadav is unsustainable inasmuch as the full bench judgment is a declaration of law and the same does not indicate that it would apply prospectively. In such a situation, merely because the Joint Director of Education had earlier decided the matter when the judgment had not been delivered would not alter the position of law. The decision in the case of Heera Lal v. State of U.P. and others (supra) would squarely apply on the facts of the present case and hence the contention so raised is rejected. Sri Yadav further contented that there was a direction by this Court to consider the grievance on merits and the Joint Director of Education on 6th September, 2010 rightly accepted the proposal. 5. The aforesaid contention cannot be accepted inasmuch as the direction of this Court was to decide the matter in accordance with law. The Joint Director of Education did not appreciate the law of reservation in correct perspective and wrongly applied the same. The second argument, therefore, is also unsustainable. Accordingly, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge by quashing the order of the Joint Director of Education and issuing a fresh direction to the Committee to assess the candidature of the eligible candidates. 6. Accordingly, no interference is called for. The appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. —————