Ashutosh Kumar Tripathi vs State of U.P. and Others

Amitava Lala, J.—This writ petition has been made to obtain an appropriate direction upon the Registrar General of this High Court to keep 2% of the posts in direct recruitment to U.P.H.J.S. 09 reserved for the candidates of dependent of freedom fighters. The learned Counsel has relied upon U.P. Public Services (Reservation of Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-servicemen) (Amendment) Act, 1997. He said that by way of amendment in Section 3(1) there shall be reservation at the stage of direct recruitment in public services, i.e., two per cent of vacancies for dependents of freedom fighters and one per cent of vacancies for ex-servicemen.

However, we have considered the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar and Another Vs. Bal Mukund Sah and Others, which speaks as follows:

Any scheme of reservation foisted on the High Court without consultation with it directly results in truncating the High Court''s power of playing a vital role in the recruitment of eligible candidates to fill up these vacancies and hence such appointments on reserved posts would remain totally ultra vires the scheme of the Constitution enacted for that purpose by the Founding Fathers.

We have also gone through the Full Bench judgment of our High Court in Sarika Vs. State of U.P. and Others, where also it has been held that the reservation will be made, if required, for the judicial service by the State Government, then it should be made in consultation with the High Court. Therefore, when such Full Court of this High Court did not approve any such proposal for reservation, we are of view that the prayer of the petitioner cannot be considered and as such writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed, however, without imposing any cost.

Shishir Kumar, J.

I agree.