ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri V.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri I.M Pandey for opposite party No. 4 and learned Standing Counsel for official opposite parties.

(2.) On the other hand learned Counsel for opposite party No. 4 contended firstly that there were only 5 posts in the cadre of Radio Officer, therefore, the petitioner could not have been given the benefit of reservation in view of the various decisions of the Supreme Court, one of them being R-S. Garg v State of U.P. and others, 2006 6 SCC 430, and the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Hira Lal v. State of U.P. and others, 2010 3 UPLBEC 1761, by which the law has been clarified, based on already existing provisions contained in the Reservation Act, 1994. He further contended that the official opposite parties while rejecting his claim vide order dated 18 5 2006 had not considered the provisions of Rules 5, 16, 17, 18 and 22 of the Service Rules, 1979 nor Rule 8(3) of the U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991 and had rejected the claim in an arbitrary manner based on reasons which were not germane in the eyes of law. He relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court dated 12.9.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 10 (SB) of 2000 Syed Zia Abbas Razvi and others v. State of U.P, and others and connected matters.

(3.) We have heard the contentions of the rival parties and perused the record.