LexSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS. versus BHARAT SINGH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• [2011) 4 S.C.R. 525 STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. v. BHARAT SINGH AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2351 of 2011) MARCH 8, 2011 [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980: Purpose of the Act - Discussed. A B c Post of Principal in affiliated/aided Degree and Post- Graduate institutions - Whether amenable to reservation - Held: The post of principal in aided/affiliated institution being D a single post in the cadre is not amenable to any reservation - Interchangeability of the post and transferability of incumbents to another post in the same cadre are essential attributes of a cadre, which is absent in the case of post of Principal - There is no power vested in the State Government or any other authority for that matter to transfer the Principal E from one institution to another institution as it may do for instance in the case of Government run institutions where Principal from one government college may be transferred to another government college in the same cadre - There is no cadre of Principals serving in different aided and affiliated F institutions and that Principal's post is a solitary post - Reservation of such a post is clearly impermissible not only because the Reservation Act of 1994 provides for reservation based on the 'cadre strength' in aided institutions but also because such strength being limited to only one post in the G cadre is legally not amenable to reservation - Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 - 525 H 526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 4 S.C.R. A Service law - Reservation - Education/Educational institutions. Selection process - Complaints received by State Government against the selection process alleging large scale 8 irregularities and ma/practices of serious nature - State Government ordered appointment of Divisional Commissioner as an inquiry officer and withholding of appointment orders in favour of selected candidates - Challenged by selected candidates before High Court by way of writ petitions - High C court quashing the appointment of the enquiry officer and issuing a mandamus to the Selection Commission to make placements in favour of selected candidates- Held: High Court was justified in quashing the appointment of the enquiry officer - High Court had given an opportunity to the counsel of State to take instructions whether the Government intended to D institute any further enquiry in the matter - Despite the opportunity, the counsel did not report any instructions in the matter- High Court, therefore, proceeded on the basis that the Government did not intend to conduct any further enquiry into the matter and accordingly quashed the order appointing the E enquiry officer as a/so the instructir.'is :ssued by hi,--;; .-:yc:.inst the making of the appointments - Question whether there were any malpractices and if so whether the selection process could be nullified by the State Government in exercise of its power u/s. 6 of the 1980 Act or Article 154 of the Constitution left open F in the light of the fact that the question regarding legality of the selection process is pending adjudication before the High Court where all parties concerned would have an opportunity to present their respective cases - Selected candidates who were appointed on the basis of the selection process and who G had filed undertakings before Supreme Court shall, therefore, be impleaded as parties to the pending writ petitions to avoid any technical infirmity in the proceedings and any consequent delay in the disposal of the matter - In such circumstances, a parallel enquiry at the Government level info those questions H • • STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. v. BHARAT SINGH AND 527 ORS. would be unnecessary - Directions passed - Constitution of A India, 1950 - Article 154. A consolidated advertisement was issued by U.P. Higher Education Service Commission inviting applications for the post of Principals in aided/affiliated 8 Degree and Post-Graduate colleges. The validity of advertisement was challenged in large number of writ petitions on the ground that the post of Principals being single posts in the cadre was not amenable to reservation. By interim order, the High Court directed the Commission C that the post of Principal should to be treated as non- reserved posts. The Commission issued a fresh a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.