# Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2005

- **Citation:** (2005) 3 ILRA 939
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-10-26
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 67651 of 2005
- **Bench:** A.P. Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-2005-40522
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Sri Shashi Nandan, Sri K.C. Sinha, Sri P.N.
Rai, Sri Rajeev Dhawan, Sri Vijay Bahadur
Sinha, Sri U.P. Singh, Sri V.B. Singh, Sri
B.N. Rai, Smt. Sunita Agarwal, Sri Manoj
Kumar, Sri Kapil Sibbal, Sri Akhil Sibbal,
Kirtika Singh, Sri M.A. Qadeer, Sri S.K.
Singh, S.C.

Constitution of India-Art. 29 (2)-read
with-Aligarh
Muslim
University
Act1920-reservation for admission-on the
basis of religion only-hit by art. 29(2) of
Constitution-held-illegal
without
jurisdiction.

Held: Para 60

It is declared that no reservation can be
provided
by
the
Aligarh
Muslim
University for admission of students on
the basis of religion only and any
decision in that regard, being hit by
Article 29(2) of the Constitution of India,
would be patently illegal and without
jurisdiction.

Constitution of India Art.-30- Protection
of minority institution-Aligarh Muslim
University-not within the meaning of
citizen-hence is not minority institutionheld-no right to provide reservation
based on particular religion-not entitled
to protection of Art. 30.

Held: Para 59

Although the Court has reservation with
regard to the extent of reservation

## Text

3 All] Manjeet Singh V. D.I.O.S., Ghazipur and others
939
illegal, such illegality cannot be allowed
to continue. The law must take its course.

23. Consequently, the order passed
by the District Judge terminating the
services of the petitioner does not suffer
from any error of law. In view of the
aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed.
However, in the circumstances of the case
there shall be no order as to cost.

 Petition dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.10.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 67651 of 2005

Manjeet Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Prakash Padia

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri. K.R. Singh.
S.C.

U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921Schedue-II-Prohibited
category
appointment-petitioner
being
the
grandson of the brother of the principal
in concerned institution-appointed on
the post of Class IV employee-rejection
by DIOS held illegal-petitioner does not
fall within 21 categories of prohibition as
defined in schedule-approval cannot be
denied.

Case law discussed:
2005 (2) ESC-1199

(Delivered by Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J.)

The petitioner has challenged the
order dated 10-10-2005 passed by the
District inspector of schools, Ghazipur,
rejecting the claim of the petitioner of his
appointment on the post of a class-IV
employee on the ground the brother of
Principal of the institution and, as such,
he falls within the prohibited category of
relative referred to in the Schedule II
appended
to
the
U.P.Intermediate
Education Act, 1921.

Since the issue is one of law,
therefore, this Court does not find it
necessary to invite any counter-affidavit
on behalf of the respondents and learned
Standing Counsel Sri K.R. Singh has very
ably assisted the Court on the aforesaid
issue by inviting the attention of the Court
to the IInd Schedule referred to herein
above. A perusal of the said Schedule
indicates that a brother's son is included
in the prohibited category. The Schedule
clearly defines 27 categories of relations
which fall within the prohibited category
for the purpose of appointment in an
institution. The Schedule as well as the
provisions under which the said schedule
has been framed clearly indicates that the
list is exhaustive and not illustrative. In
this view of the matter, no other relative
can be said to be included within the
prohibited category as defined under the
IInd Schedule. The aforesaid position of
law stands squarely supported by a recent
decision of this Court in the case of G.P.
Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2005
(2) ECS 1199. The Impugned order,
therefore, proceeds on an erroneous
assumption
of
law
inasmuch
as
admittedly the petitioner is the grand son
of the brother and therefore, he does not
fall within the prohibited category as
940 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
defined in the IInd Schedule referred to
herein above.

The
impugned
order
dated
10.10.2005 is quashed. The District
Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad, is
directed to forthwith pass appropriate
orders in the light of the observations
made herein above for approving the
appointment
of
the
petitioner
in
accordance with law as expeditiously as
possible preferably within a period of 3
weeks
and
to
extend
all
such
consequential benefits to which he is
entitled in accordance with law.

The writ petition is allowed. No
order as to cost.
Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.10.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15504 of 2005

Naresh Agarwal Dr.

...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents
connected with
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12060 of
2005
Manvendra Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents
connected with
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24264 of
2005
Malay Shukla and others ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents
connected with
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24271 of
2005
Vivek Kasana and others ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others ..Respondents
connected with
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24274 of
2005
Anuj Gupta and others ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ravi Kant
Sri J.J. Munir

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Shashi Nandan, Sri K.C. Sinha, Sri P.N.
Rai, Sri Rajeev Dhawan, Sri Vijay Bahadur
Sinha, Sri U.P. Singh, Sri V.B. Singh, Sri
B.N. Rai, Smt. Sunita Agarwal, Sri Manoj
Kumar, Sri Kapil Sibbal, Sri Akhil Sibbal,
Kirtika Singh, Sri M.A. Qadeer, Sri S.K.
Singh, S.C.

Constitution of India-Art. 29 (2)-read
with-Aligarh
Muslim
University
Act1920-reservation for admission-on the
basis of religion only-hit by art. 29(2) of
Constitution-held-illegal
without
jurisdiction.

Held: Para 60

It is declared that no reservation can be
provided
by
the
Aligarh
Muslim
University for admission of students on
the basis of religion only and any
decision in that regard, being hit by
Article 29(2) of the Constitution of India,
would be patently illegal and without
jurisdiction.

Constitution of India Art.-30- Protection
of minority institution-Aligarh Muslim
University-not within the meaning of
citizen-hence is not minority institutionheld-no right to provide reservation
based on particular religion-not entitled
to protection of Art. 30.

Held: Para 59

Although the Court has reservation with
regard to the extent of reservation