# Mukesh Glass Industries v. Station Master, Firozabad (N.Railway) and others

- **Citation:** (2001) 1 ILRA 171
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2001
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mukesh-glass-industries-v-station-master-firozabad-n-railway-and-others-39588
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

1All] Mukesh Glass Industries V. Station Master, Firozabad (N.Railway) and others 171
vs. Dr. Dina Nath Shukla5 on which
reliance was placed by the learned
counsel too should be construed in the
like manner:

"Thus it could be seen that if the
subjectwise recruitment is adopted in each
service or post in each cadre in each
faculty, discipline specialty or super
specialty, it would not only be clear to the
candidates who seek recruitment but also
there would not be an over-lapping in
application of the rule of reservation to
the service or posts as specified and made
applicable by Section 3 of the Act. On the
other hand, if the total posts are advertised
without subjectwise specifications, in
every faculty, discipline, specialty or
super specialty it would be difficult for
the candidates to know as to which of the
posts be available either to the general or
reserved candidates or whether or not they
fulfill or qualify the requirements so as to
apply for a particular post and seek
selection."
10.

The
words
'subject-wise
recruitment' in Dina Nath Shukla's case
and the words the reservations have to be
pose wise i.e., subject-wise used in the
case of Dr. Suresh Chandra Verma mean
only
this
that
the
recruitment
notice/advertisement must clearly state
the
posts
i.e.
the
subject/discipline
reserved under the U.P. Act 4 of 1994.
These expressions, in our opinion, do not
sup0port the contention that total number
of reserved posts should be worked out
subject-wise and not cadre/grade wise.
While appreciating the ratio laid down in
the above cases, the question raised for
consideration before the Apex Court must
be borne in mind. Nothing in these

5 (1997) 7 SCC 662
decisions precludes linking of posts in the
same grade/cadre, though in different
subjects for the purpose of working out
the
quota
for
reserved
category
candidates. It must also be borne in mind
that selection is made in respect of
vacancies at the State level Sub section
(3) of Section 12 of U.P. Higher
Education Services Commission, Act,
1980 provides for notification to the
Commission " a subjectwise consolidated
list of vacancies from all colleges." This
also suggests integration of vacancies in a
grade/cadre for the purpose of working
out the number of reserved posts.

In the result, the petition being
devoid of merits, fails and is dismissed in
limine.
Petition Dismissed.

25,*,1$/ -85
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 6.6(1 &-
7+( +21·%/( 6.6(1 &-
7+( +21·%/( 68'+,5 1$5$,1 -
7+( +21·%/( 68'+,5 1$5$,1 -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ QR RI

0XNHVK *ODVV ,QGXVWULHV
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWLRQ
0DVWHU
)LUR]DEDG
1RUWKHUQ
5DLOZD\ RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH SHWLWLRQHU
6KUL 5DNHVK .XPDU *DUJ
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
6UL 6KLWOD 6DKDL
6UL $QDQG .XPDU

83
&RQWURO
RUGHU

FODXVH

5HTXLUHPHQW
RI
&RXQWHU
6LJQDWXUH
3HWLWLRQHU QHLWKHU OLFHQFH RU WKH SHUVRQ
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
172
DFWLQJ RQ EHKDOI RI OLFHQVHH ± FRXQWHU
VLJQDWXUH QRW UHTXLUHG
+HOG 3DUD
7KH SHWLWLRQHU LV QRW D OLFHQVHH RU DQ\
RWKHU SHUVRQ DFWLQJ RQ EHKDOI RI WKH
OLFHQVHH XQGHU FODXVH RI 83 &RDO
&RQWURO 2UGHU DQG DV VXFK LQ RXU
YLHZ WKHUH LV QR UHTXLUHPHQW RI FRXQWHU
VLJQDWXUH

By the Court

1. We have heard Sri Rakesh Kumar
Garg, learned Advocate for the writ
petitioner and Sri Shitla Sahai, learned
Advocate for the respondents.

2. The petitioner is not a licensee or
any other person acting on behalf of the
licensee under clause (11) if U.P. Coal
Control Order, 1977 and as such, in our
view, there is no requirement of counter
signature. The view which, we have
taken, is supported by the decision of
unreported judgment of a Division Bench
of this Court in the case of S.R. Glass
Industries, Mainpuri Gate, Firozabad and
others Vs Station Master, Firozabad,
Northern Railway and others (Writ
Petition no. Nil of 1989) decided on
13.12.1989. In the aforesaid decision, it
was held that since the petitioners are
neither licensees nor persons acting on
behalf of any licensee within the meaning
of Clause (11) of U.P. Control Order,
1977, the opposite- parties are not
justified
in
insisting
that
the
coal
consignment of the petitioners can be
released only after they obtain the
endorsement
from
the
Director
of
Industries. Another Division Bench of this
Court has also followed the same view in
the case of Atul Glass Industries,
Mahalarpur,
and
others
Vs
Station
Master, Firozabad, Shikohabad, Northern
Railway and others (Writ Petition no.
13612 of 2000) decided on 27.3.2000. we
do not find any reason to take a different
view in the instant case. Considering all
aspects of the matter, we are of the view
that the petitioner should succeed in the
writ petition.

The writ petition is, accordingly,
allowed.

Accordingly direction is issued to
respondent No. 1 to give the delivery of
coal consignment without insisting the
petitioner for obtaining counter signature
from respondent No. 3.
Petition Allowed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 6.6(1 &-
7+( +21·%/( 6.6(1 &-
7+( +21·%/( 68'+,5 1$5$,1 -
7+( +21·%/( 68'+,5 1$5$,1 -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ QR RI

'KDUDPYLU $JDUZDO
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHUV
6UL %% 3DQGH\
6UL 5DYLQGUD 6LQJK
6UL $PDU 6DUDQ
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6UL 53*RHO $GYRFDWH *HQHUDO
6UL $GLW\D 1DUDLQ
6UL %'0DQGK\DQ
83 0XQLFLSDOLWLHV $FW $JH OLPLW IRU
3UHVLGHQW IL[LQJ \HDUV ZKHWKHU LV XOWUD
YLUHV EHLQJ FRQWUDU\ WR $UWLFOH 9 RI
WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD" +HOG μ1R¶
IL[LQJ DJH OLPLW LV ZLWKLQ WKH FRPSHWHQFH