VIVEK SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

VIVEK SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

Appointment of the appellant on the post of Deputy Collector for selection year 2001-2002 is not permissible as it would disturb the seniority of those already appointed; reservation requirement has been complied with and vacancies filled as per roster. Retrospective accommodation would create administrative difficulties.

Parties
Appellant: Vivek Singh; Respondents: State of U.P. & Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
26 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 10.05.2013 of Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8334 of 2004
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Selection Under Physically Handicapped Category, Backlog Quota, Reservation, Seniority, Persons With Disabilities (equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995
Service Law Selection Under Physically Handicapped Category Backlog Quota Reservation Seniority Persons With Disabilities (equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vivek Singh

Appellant

State of U.P. & Anr.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 10.05.2013 of Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8334 of 2004

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to appointment as Deputy Collector under backlog quota for physically handicapped category for selection year 2001-2002
  2. 2 Whether retrospective appointment would disturb seniority of those appointed since 2001-2002

Ratio Decidendi

Appointment of the appellant on the post of Deputy Collector for selection year 2001-2002 is not permissible as it would disturb the seniority of those already appointed; reservation requirement has been complied with and vacancies filled as per roster. Retrospective accommodation would create administrative difficulties.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No appointment of appellant to the post of Deputy Collector for the year 2001-2002