# Smt. Vandana Gangwar v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2011) 1 ILRA 175
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-02-22
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3320 of 2004
- **Bench:** Arun Tandon
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-vandana-gangwar-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41823
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

C.S.C.
Sri J.P. Rai
Sri R.K.Mishra,
Sri S.R. Pandey

U.P.
Secondary
Education
Service
Selection Board Act, 1982-Reservation in
Promotion-out of 7 Post three occupied
by direct recruitment-four under 50%
promotion Quota-petitioner being Senior
most
L.T.
Grade
teacher
rightly
promoted-authority
refused
to
grant
approval raising objection the post in
Question
be
fulfilled
by
S.C./S.T.
Candidate held-misconceived-in view of
Full Bench decision of Heera Lal case if
vacancy less than 5-No reservation for
S.C./S.T.
Available-order
impugned
refusing
approval-not
sustainable
Quashed with all consequential benefits.

Held: Para 6

In view of the said Full Bench judgment,
it has to be held that since there are only
four posts within the promotion quota in
the cadre of Lecturer in the institution,
no
reservation
for
Scheduled
Caste
category candidate can be provided.
Consequently the reasons assigned in
the impugned order fall to ground. The
order impugned is therefore, quashed.
Let the respondent no. 3 (Joint Director
of Education, Bareilly Region, Bareilly)
reconsider the claim of the petitioner for
regular promotion in accordance with
the Act, 1982 preferably within eight
weeks from the date a certified copy of
this order is filed before him. All
consequential
action
be
taken
accordingly.
Case law discussed:
(2010) 3 UPLBEC, 1761

## Text

1 All] Smt. Vandana Gangwar V. State of U.P. and others
175
ORIGINAL JURISDICION

CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.02.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3320 of 2004

Smt. Vandana Gangwar
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Preet Pal Singh Rathore

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri J.P. Rai
Sri R.K.Mishra,
Sri S.R. Pandey

U.P.
Secondary
Education
Service
Selection Board Act, 1982-Reservation in
Promotion-out of 7 Post three occupied
by direct recruitment-four under 50%
promotion Quota-petitioner being Senior
most
L.T.
Grade
teacher
rightly
promoted-authority
refused
to
grant
approval raising objection the post in
Question
be
fulfilled
by
S.C./S.T.
Candidate held-misconceived-in view of
Full Bench decision of Heera Lal case if
vacancy less than 5-No reservation for
S.C./S.T.
Available-order
impugned
refusing
approval-not
sustainable
Quashed with all consequential benefits.

Held: Para 6

In view of the said Full Bench judgment,
it has to be held that since there are only
four posts within the promotion quota in
the cadre of Lecturer in the institution,
no
reservation
for
Scheduled
Caste
category candidate can be provided.
Consequently the reasons assigned in
the impugned order fall to ground. The
order impugned is therefore, quashed.
Let the respondent no. 3 (Joint Director
of Education, Bareilly Region, Bareilly)
reconsider the claim of the petitioner for
regular promotion in accordance with
the Act, 1982 preferably within eight
weeks from the date a certified copy of
this order is filed before him. All
consequential
action
be
taken
accordingly.
Case law discussed:
(2010) 3 UPLBEC, 1761

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J. )

1. Petitioner before this Court
seeks quashing of the order dated
24.11.2003
whereunder
the
papers
transmitted qua regular promotion of the
petitioner as Lecturer (History) have
been returned after recording a finding
that the vacancy is required to be filled
from
a
Scheduled
Caste
category
candidate. The petitioner not being a
member of such category is not entitled
for regular promotion against the same.

2. Facts in short giving rise to the
present writ petition are as follows :

Raja Ram Mahila Inter College,
Badaun is an aided and recognized
institution under the provisions of the
Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The
provisions of U.P. Secondary Education
Services Selection Board Act, 1982
(herein after referred to as the Act,
1982) and rules framed thereunder are
fully applicable to the teachers of the
said institution. As per the records made
available to the Court, eight posts of
Lecturer were created in the institution.
One Shyama Devi Sharma who was
working as Lecturer (History) in the
institution
expired
on
15.06.1995
causing a vacancy on the post of
Lecturer (History).
176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

3. The petitioner was appointed as
C.T.Grade teacher in the said institution
on 14.11.1979. On completing 10 years
of service she was granted L.T. Grade
w.e.f. 13.11.1989. In view of Section
33-D of the Act, 1982 the petitioner is
to be treated as L.T. Grade teacher. She
was granted ad hoc promotion as
Lecturer against the said vacancy which
appointment was approved by the
District Inspector of Schools vide order
dated 11.02.1997. The order was made
effective w.e.f. 17.08.1995. It appears
that the papers in respect of regular
promotion
of
the
petitioner
were
forwarded to the respondent authorities.
It is on these papers that the impugned
order has been passed recording therein
that the vacancy was within the quota
for Scheduled Caste, therefore, the
petitioner cannot be granted regular
promotion.

4.

A
supplementary
counter
affidavit has been filed by the District
Inspector of Schools dated 18.11.2006.
From Annexure-1 to the supplementary
counter affidavit as well as the facts on
record, it is an admitted position that
there are eight sanctioned posts of
Clerk, 50% of the same are required to
be filled by way of promotion which
would work out to four. It is further
admitted on record that on the date
Shyama Devi Sharma expired i.e.
15.06.1995, there were seven lecturers
actually working in the institution
including Shyama Devi Sharma. Out of
seven persons, three had been appointed
by direct recruitment and one post was
vacanct, meaning thereby that the
vacancy which was occurred due to
death of Shyama Devi Sharma, was
required to be filled by way of
promotion. It is against this vacancy that
the petitioner had claimed promotion as
Lecturer.

5. A Full Bench of this Court in
the case of Heera Lal and others vs.
State of U.P. and others reported in
(2010) 3 UPLBEC, 1761 has held that
for reservation being provided in favour
of Scheduled Caste category, there must
be at least five posts in the cadre
concerned. The Full Bench has further
explained that where the vacancies are
required to be filled by promotion as
well as directed recruitment, such
number of posts have to be individually
determined
for
each
source
of
recruitment.

6. In view of the said Full Bench
judgment, it has to be held that since
there are only four posts within the
promotion quota in the cadre of Lecturer
in the institution, no reservation for
Scheduled Caste category candidate can
be provided. Consequently the reasons
assigned in the impugned order fall to
ground.
The
order
impugned
is
therefore, quashed. Let the respondent
no. 3 (Joint Director of Education,
Bareilly Region, Bareilly) reconsider
the claim of the petitioner for regular
promotion in accordance with the Act,
1982 preferably within eight weeks
from the date a certified copy of this
order
is
filed
before
him.
All
consequential
action
be
taken
accordingly.

7. Writ petition is allowed subject
to the observations made herein above.
---------
1 All] Smt. Sumita Devi V. Sushila Devi and others
177
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.02.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14489 of 2008

Smt. Sumitra Devi

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Sushila Devi and others ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
B.N. Chaturvedi,
Smt. C.K. Chaturvedi

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

U.P.Z.A.
&
L.R.
Act-Section-168-APurchase of grove land-through Regd.
sale deed-challenged by private personheld-except Gaon Sabha or the Stateprivate individual has no locus standi and
in earlier civil suit challenging same sale
transaction-got finality by dismissal-on
same very ground-more over gave land is
not
within
meaning
of
agricultural
holding-considering amendment 2004provision
of
Section
168-A
itself
repeated-after depositing certain amount
sale transaction can be validated-which
also
expired-hence
with
liberal
interpretation in favor of vendor and
vendee-order impugned declaring sale
deed void hit by Section 168-A-Quashed.

Held: Para 7

Moreover provisions of Section 168-A
were quite harsh. The Section has also
been deleted. U.P. Act No. 27 of 2004
which deleted section 168-A made the
previous transactions hit by the said
section voidable (in stead of void) and
curable (capable of being validated) on
payment of some nominal fees within a
particular period which has now expired
(Section 11). Accordingly, for these two
reasons the section shall be interpreted
(for
the
sake
of
past
transactions)
liberally, in favour of vendor and vendee.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.)

1. List revised. No one has appeared
for the respondents. Heard learned counsel
for the petitioner.

2. Petitioner through registered sale
deed dated 25.9.1984 purchased land admeasuring 520 Square Meter out of Plot
No. 159 Ka total area 0.73 acres from
respondent No. 5 - Sheri Pal. Earlier
respondent Nos. 5 to 10 had purchased
total Plot No. 159 Ka from its previous
bhumidhar Sushila Devi, repondent no. 1
on 27.02.1975. The plot is grove and
entered as such in revenue records. Ram
Nath,
respondent
No.2
and
others
purchased plot no. 159 Kha area 0.09 acre
from Sushila Devi in 1985. They first
challenged the sale deed dated 25.9.1994
along with two other similar sale deeds
through a civil suit only on the ground that
the deeds were in violation of and hit by
Section
168-A
of
U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition & Land Reforms Act (the said
Section has been repealed in 2004). The
said section prohibited sale of fragment of
agricultural land. The suit (Suit No. 621 of
1986) was dismissed on 26.02.1988 by 5th
Additional Munsif, Etah. Copy of the said
judgment is annexed as Annexure-I to the
writ petition. In the said judgement, it was
specifically held that in view of the fact
that the property in question was grove and
not situate in consolidated area, Section
168-A of the Act was not attracted.
Against the said judgment, Civil Appeal
No. 64 of 1988 was filed, which was
dismissed by 7th Additional District Judge,
Etah on 4.8.1990. Copy of the said
judgment is annexed as Annexure-II to the