# Raj Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2014) 2 ILRA 836
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-07-03
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30017 of 2014
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J. Dilip Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raj-kumar-verma-v-state-of-u-p-anr-42988
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Board Act, 1982-Section 10(i)-Providing no
reservation on post of head of institutionwhether ultra virus being contrary to U.P.
Public Services (Reservation for SC/ST &
and Other Backward classes) Act 1994?-
held-'No'-controversy involved in present
case squarely covered by decision of Apex
Court in Chakradhan Paswan case-petition
dismissed.

Held: Para-7
Hence, the exclusion of reservation from
the post of the Head of the Institution in
Section 10 of the Act of 1982 is in
conformity with the provisions of the
Constitution and is, in fact, intended to
ensure that there is no violation of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution. As a matter
of fact, Rule 12 (6) of the U.P. Secondary
Education Services Selection Board Rules,
1998 makes a clear distinction between
recruitment of teachers in the lecturer and
trained graduate scale on the one hand
and
the
recruitment
of
the
Principals/Headmasters on the other hand.
In the case of the latter, there is no
provision for reservation consistent with
the provisions of Section 10 of the Act of

## Text

836 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
affidavit is not sufficient, it must also be
shown that the court has applied its mind
to the material/assertions and reasons for
existence of grave urgency must find place in
the order of the court. Ex parte injunction
order was passed after forty days from
institution of the suit and the writ petition
challenging the lower appellate courts order
was filed after 130 days, this clearly
demonstrates that there was no grave
urgency in granting ex parte injunction order.

28. It is of utmost importance to
note that an ex parte order of injunction is
an exception, the general rule is that
injunction order be passed only after
notice to the defendant. It is only in rare
cases where the court finds that the object
of granting injunction would be defeated
by delay, the court can grant injunction ex
parte but that too only after recording
reasons having regard to the mandatory
provisions of rule 3 of Order 39, ex parte
injunction is not routine matter and it
must be borne in mind by the courts
below.

29. In the facts and circumstances of
the present case and for the reasons and
law stated herein above, the lower
appellate court did not commit any
illegality
or
jurisdictional
error
in
vacating the ex parte injunction order; this
court declines to interfere with the
impugned order under Article 226/227 of
the Constitution of India.

30. The writ petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.07.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT
CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE DILIP GUPTA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30017 of 2014

Raj Kumar Verma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.S. Kushwaha

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Shiv Nath Singh

U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection
Board Act, 1982-Section 10(i)-Providing no
reservation on post of head of institutionwhether ultra virus being contrary to U.P.
Public Services (Reservation for SC/ST &
and Other Backward classes) Act 1994?-
held-'No'-controversy involved in present
case squarely covered by decision of Apex
Court in Chakradhan Paswan case-petition
dismissed.

Held: Para-7
Hence, the exclusion of reservation from
the post of the Head of the Institution in
Section 10 of the Act of 1982 is in
conformity with the provisions of the
Constitution and is, in fact, intended to
ensure that there is no violation of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution. As a matter
of fact, Rule 12 (6) of the U.P. Secondary
Education Services Selection Board Rules,
1998 makes a clear distinction between
recruitment of teachers in the lecturer and
trained graduate scale on the one hand
and
the
recruitment
of
the
Principals/Headmasters on the other hand.
In the case of the latter, there is no
provision for reservation consistent with
the provisions of Section 10 of the Act of
1982.

Case Law discussed:
(2008) 12 SC 1; (1988) 2 SCC 214; (2011) 4
SCC 120

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya
Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J.)
2 All]. Raj Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
837

1. The Uttar Pradesh Secondary
Education
Services
Selection
Board
('Board') issued an advertisement for
direct recruitment to the post of Head of
Government aided private Inter Colleges
and High Schools. The petitioner applied
for the post of Principal for Gorakhpur
Region. It has been averred that no date
for interview has been fixed thus far.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is
that in consequence of the provisions of
Section 10 (1) of the U.P. Secondary
Education Services Selection Board Act,
1982, no reservation has been provided in
respect of the post of the Head of the
Institution to candidates belonging to the
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
Other Backward Classes in accordance
with the provisions of the U.P. Public
Services
(Reservation
for
Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other
Backward Classes) Act, 1994. The
petitioner challenges the provisions of
Section 10 (1) of the Act of 1982 as
unconstitutional. In consequence, the
petitioner
seeks
to
challenge
the
advertisement of 2013 as well as an
earlier advertisement of 2011 issued by
the Board and seeks a mandamus for
issuance of a fresh advertisement after
providing for reservation.

3. Section 10 of the Act of 1982
reads as follows:

"10. Procedure of selection by direct
recruitment. - (1) For the purpose of
making appointment of a teacher, by
direct recruitment, the management shall
determine the number of vacancies
existing or likely to fall vacant during the
year of recruitment and in the case of a
post other than the post of Head of the
Institution, also the number of vacancies
to
be
reserved
for
the
candidates
belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the
Scheduled Tribes and other Backward
Classes of citizens in accordance with the
Uttar
Pradesh
Public
Services
(Reservation
for
Scheduled
Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward
Classes) Act, 1994, and notify the
vacancies to the Board in such manner
and through such officer or authority as
may be prescribed.

(2) The procedure of selection of
candidates for direct recruitment to the
post of teachers shall be such as may be
prescribed:

Provided that the Board shall, with a
view to inviting talented persons, give
wide publicity in the State to the
vacancies notified under sub-section (1)."

4. Section 10 of the Act of 1982
specifically excludes the post of Head of
the Institution from the purview of
reservation. The issue, which is sought to
be raised before the Court, is not res
integra.

5. In Balbir Kaur v. U.P. Secondary
Education Services Selection Board1, the
Supreme Court specifically dealt with the
issue as to whether the post of the Head of
the Institution was liable to be reserved
when direct recruitment is carried out in
pursuance of an advertisement issued
under the Act of 1982. The issue was
considered in the judgment of the
Supreme Court from two perspectives.
Firstly, the matter was considered having
due regard to the provisions of Section 10
noted above, which specifically and
expressly excludes the post of Principal
from the purview of the Act of 1994. But
838 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
this decision is sought to be distinguished
by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner by submitting that
in that case there was no challenge to the
constitutional validity of Section 10 of the
Act of 1982. Now it is true that in Balbir
Kaur (supra) there was no challenge to the
constitutional validity of Section 10 of the
Act of 1982. This aspect had been
specifically noted in the judgment of the
Supreme Court. However, the point,
which we note, is that the decision in
Balbir Kaur (supra) did not only rest on
the provisions of Section 10 of the Act of
1982, which excludes the post of the Head
of the Institution from the purview of
reservation. Apart from this rationale, the
Supreme Court also held, following the
decision of the Constitution Bench in
Chakradhar Paswan (Dr.) v. State of Bihar
and Ors.2, that the existence of a plurality
of posts is a sine qua non for a valid
reservation in a single post cadre.
Moreover, it was also held that neither in
the Act of 1982 nor in the Rules made
thereunder or in the Act of 1994 is there
any
provision for
clubbing
of
all
educational institutions in the State for the
purpose of reservation. The observations
of the Supreme Court in that regard read
as follows:-

"Moreover, the post of the Principal
in an educational institution being in a
single post cadre, in the light of the clear
dictum laid down by this Court, such a
post cannot be subjected to reservation. It
will result in 100 per cent reservation,
which is not permissible in terms of
Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of
India. In PGI Chandigarh's case (supra) a
Constitution Bench of this Court, while
holding that plurality of posts in a cadre is
a sine qua non for a valid reservation,
affirmed the view taken in Chakradhar
Paswan v. State of Bihar and Ors. In that
case, it was held that there cannot be any
reservation in a single post cadre and the
decisions
to
the
contrary,
upholding
reservation in single post cadre either directly
or by device of rotation of roster were not
approved. Besides, as noted above, neither
the Principal Act, nor the rules made
thereunder or the 1994 Act provide for
clubbing of all educational institutions in the
State of U.P. for the purpose of reservation
and, therefore, there is no question of
clubbing the post of the Principles in all the
educational institutions for the purpose of
applying the principle of reservation under
the 1994 Act. We are, therefore, in
agreement with the High Court that the
advertisements impugned in the writ petition
were not vitiated for want of provision for
reservation. It is also pertinent to note that
none of the respondents belong to the
reserved category of Scheduled Castes or
Scheduled Tribes or other Backward
Classes."

6. The judgement of Balbir Kaur
(supra) was subsequently followed by the
Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh &
Ors. v. Bharat Singh & Ors.3. In Bharat Singh
(supra), the Supreme Court referred to the
decision of the Constitution Bench in
Chakradhar
Paswan
(supra)
and
the
subsequent decisions and held that separate
posts in different institutions cannot be
clubbed together for the
purpose of
reservation. Any reservation where there is
only a single post in the cadre would amount
to 100% reservation, which would violate
Articles 14 (1) and 16 (4) of the Constitution.
In that context, the Supreme Court held as
follows:-

"71. In Chakradhar Paswan (Dr.)
case this Court relying upon the decision
in Arati Ray Choudhury v. Union of
2 All]. Raj Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
839
India, M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore and
T. Devadasan v. Union of India held that
separate posts in different institutions
cannot be clubbed together for the
purpose
of
reservation
and
that
reservation may be made only where there
are more than one posts. Reservation of
only a single post in the cadre would
amount to 100% reservation and thereby
violate Articles 14 (1) and 16 (4) of the
Constitution. In Bhide Girls Education
Society v. Education Officer this Court
held that a single post of Headmistress of
an institution could not be reserved as the
same would amount to making a 100%
reservation.

72.
The
controversy
was
authoritatively
set
at
rest
by
the
Constitution Bench decision of this Court
in Postgraduate Institute of Medical
Education & Research v. Faculty Assn.
case where this Court overruled the
decisions of this Court in Union of India
v. Madhav, Union of India v. Brij Lal
Thakur and State of Bihar v. Bageshwari
Prasad and observed: (Faculty Assn. case,
SCC p. 23, paras 34-35).

"34. In a single post cadre, reservation
at any point of time on account of rotation of
roster is bound to bring about a situation
where such a single post in the cadre will be
kept reserved exclusively for the members of
the backward classes and in total exclusion
of the general members of the public. Such
total exclusion of general members of the
public and cent per cent reservation for the
backward classes is not permissible within
the constitutional framework. The decisions
of this Court to this effect over the decades
have been consistent.

35.Hence, until there is plurality of
posts in a cadre, the question of
reservation will not arise because any
attempt of reservation by whatever means
and even with the device of rotation of
roster in a single post cadre is bound to
create 100% reservation of such post
whenever such reservation is to be
implemented. The device of rotation of
roster in respect of single post cadre will
only mean that on some occasions there
will be complete reservation and the
appointment to such post is kept out of
bounds to the members of a large segment
of the community who do not belong to
any reserved class, but on some other
occasions the post will be available for
open competition when in fact on all such
occasions, a single post cadre should have
been filled only by open competition
amongst all segments of the society."

73. In the light of the above decision,
we have no hesitation in holding that the
post of Principals in each one of the
aided/affiliated institution being a single
post in the cadre is not amenable to any
reservation. Question (ii) is accordingly
answered in the affirmative."

7. In our view, the submission that
there
was
no
challenge
to
the
constitutional validity of Section 10 of the
Act of 1982 in Balbir Kaur (supra) and
that the subsequent decisions would not
be precedents must fail. The foundation of
the decision in Balbir Kaur (supra) is two
fold. Firstly, the decision rests on the
express provisions of Section 10 of the
Act of 1982, which excludes reservation
on a single post cadre. But the second and
more fundamental point is that the
decision
follows
the
long
line
of
precedent of the Supreme Court in which
the consistent view is that where there is a
single post cadre, any reservation would
amount to cent per cent reservation and
840 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
would hence offend Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution. Hence, the exclusion of
reservation from the post of the Head of
the Institution in Section 10 of the Act of
1982 is in conformity with the provisions
of the Constitution and is, in fact,
intended to ensure that there is no
violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. As a matter of fact, Rule 12
(6) of the U.P. Secondary Education
Services Selection Board Rules, 1998
makes
a
clear
distinction
between
recruitment of teachers in the lecturer and
trained graduate scale on the one hand
and
the
recruitment
of
the
Principals/Headmasters on the other hand.
In the case of the latter, there is no
provision for reservation consistent with
the provisions of Section 10 of the Act of
1982.

8. In this view of the matter, we are
unable to accept the challenge to the
constitutional validity of the provisions of
Section 10 of the Act of 1982 insofar as it
excludes the post of Head of the Institution
from the ambit of reservation. As a matter of
fact, the constitutional validity of Section 10
of the Act of 1982 is squarely covered by the
decision of the Supreme Court in Chakradhar
Paswan (supra) and the subsequent line of
judgments, which have been noted in the
judgments of Balbir Kaur (supra) and Bharat
Singh (supra). The decisions in Balbir Kaur
(supra) and Bharat Singh (supra) emanated
from the State of Uttar Pradesh. As a matter
of fact, Balbir Kaur (supra) considered both
the Act of 1994 and the Act of 1982. Since
we are governed by binding precedent and
the law laid down by the Supreme Court,
there would be no occasion for this Court to
exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution in view of the clear
proposition of law as interpreted in
successive decisions of the Supreme Court.
The Government Order dated 12 January
2011 (Anneuxre No.7), on which reliance
has been placed by the petitioner, is similarly
of no avail since the administrative decision
must necessarily be read in the context of the
provisions of the relevant Act and the law
laid down by the Supreme Court.

9. For these reasons, we see no
ground to entertain the petition. The
petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.07.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT
CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE DILIP GUPTA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31251 of 2014

Yogesh Kumar Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anand Kumar Singh, Sriprakash Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Permit to
play mini bus-in to two adjoining Districtsauthority
refused
to
entertain
such
application-unless
character
certificatefrom
both
district
filed-held-arbitraryrequirement by provision of para 6 (ka) of
resolution-shows total non application of
mind-authorities
shall
not
insist
of
certificate from both the districts-except in
which petitioner permanently residing.

Held: Para-3
Merely because an applicant desires to
carry on business, in this case operating
a stage carriage which covers more than