Ballabh Pathak Vs. State of U.P. & Ors  INSC 800 (12 July 1996)
K.Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)
JT 1996 (7) 356
O R D
appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated May 24, 1995 of the Allahabad High Court in
Special Appeal No.401/92. The appellant was working as a Hindi Pandit in the
L.T. Grade. The Bazpur Cooperative Sugar Factory Inter College, Bazpur, District Nainital was upgraded from High School.
Four posts, including the post of a Hindu Pandit, were sanctioned for
recruitment. The appellant is an M.A., Ph.D. in Hindi. He staked his claim for
promotion to that post. It was not acceded to.
he filed the writ petition in the High Court.
single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have negatived his
claim. Thus this appeal by special leave.
only question involved in this case is: whether the appellant is eligible for
appointment as a Hindu Pandit in the intermediate college. Shri Pramod Swarup,
learned counsel for the appellant contended that since one Smt. Lila Singh was
already working in the school as a Sanskrit teacher, insisting upon his having
B.A. degree in Sanskrit is contrary to the statutory rules and that, therefore,
the High Court was not right in rejecting his abovesaid claim.
find no force in the contention. It is seen that Smt. Lila Singh is working as
Sanskrit teacher in the High School but not in the college. As a consequence,
when the vacancy had arisen for Hindi Pandit in the college, admittedly, the
qualification prescribed is M.A. in Hindi and B.A. in Sanskrit, apart from B.Ed.,
since both Hindi and Sanskrit are to be taught by the same teacher in the
the appellant did not possess B.A. degree in Sanskrit. Under those
circumstances, rejection of his claim cannot be said to be vitiated by any
error of law. In addition, the High Court has also pointed out that the
Management had stated in their counter-affidavit filed in the High Court that
the said post was reserved for the Scheduled Caste and was notified by the U.P.
Secondary Education Service Commission, His claim was rejected on that ground
also. Under these circumstances, we do not think that it is a case warranting interference.
appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Pages: 1 2