9911796707
|
Home
The Court addressed the application of reservation rules for Scheduled Caste candidates in aided educational institutions in Uttar Pradesh, specifically concerning Class III posts when the sanctioned cadre strength is less than five. The primary legal questions considered were whether the reservation roster can be applied to promotions in Intermediate Colleges when the number of posts is less than five, and whether there is a conflict between previous judgments regarding this issue.
The relevant legal framework includes the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and other Backward Classes) Act, 1994, and related government orders. The Court examined whether the reservation roster could be applied to a cadre with fewer than five posts, considering the statutory reservation percentage of 21% for Scheduled Castes. The Court noted that the application of the reservation roster in cases where the cadre strength is less than five would result in a reservation percentage exceeding the statutory limit, thereby violating the law established in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, which capped reservations at 50%. The judgments in R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab and R.S. Garg v. State of U.P. were cited to emphasize that reservation percentages should be calculated based on the total number of posts in a cadre, not vacancies, and cannot exceed the prescribed limits. In its reasoning, the Court rejected the argument that the Government Order dated 8th March 1973, which allegedly allowed for reservation in cadres with fewer than five posts, could override the statutory limits. The Court clarified that neither the Government Order nor the 1994 Act supports applying the reservation roster to a cadre with fewer than five posts. The Court concluded that the rule of reservation and the roster system could only be applied when there are five or more posts in a cadre, ensuring that the reservation percentage does not exceed the statutory limit. The decision in Mahendra Kumar Gond's case was deemed per incuriam because it failed to consider earlier judgments that correctly interpreted the law. The Court approved the judgment in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh's case as correctly laying down the law. In summary, the Court held that the reservation roster cannot be applied to a cadre with fewer than five posts, whether for promotion or direct recruitment, under the U.P. Act No. 4 of 1994. The decision in Mahendra Kumar Gond's case was not approved, and the judgment in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh's case was affirmed as the correct legal position.
|
