A Lucknow bench of the excessive court docket put the interim keep on a plea by an aspiring applicant for the submit of assistant professor within the Anthropology Division, who had questioned the rationale behind reserving seats in varied departments, treating the whole varsity as one physique for offering reservation.
The bench of Justice Irshad Ali additionally requested the varsity to maintain one submit of the assistant professor within the Anthropology Division vacant for the petitioner, Dr Preeti Singh, a normal class candidate, until the choice on her petition.
The bench additionally requested the state authorities and College to file their replies to Singh’s petition by March 10, the subsequent date for the listening to of the case.
Dr Singh has contended in her petition that owing to the modality adopted by the varsity for reserving seats, not one of the 4 vacant seats of the Anthropology Division has been left open for the overall class candidates.
And this has made her ineligible even for making use of for the appointment within the Anthropology Division, she mentioned.
She identified that as a substitute of reserving seats department-wise, the varsity has proceeded within the appointment course of, treating itself as one physique for all 180 vacant seats because of which no seats have been left open for the overall class candidates in lots of departments.
Being attentive to the contentions, raised by the petitioner, the bench put an interim keep on the ultimate choice of assistant professors for the examination of the legality of the varsity’s reservation formulae.
Justice Ali gave the order observing that as per the previous rulings of each the Supreme Courtroom and this court docket, reserving seats department-wise or subject-wise would have been the suitable methodology slightly than treating the whole college as a single unit and reserving seats on the premise of all of the vacancies of all departments put collectively.
Whereas staying the ultimate choice of academics, the bench noticed that the college has reserved seats adopting a central regulation which seeks to calm down the Supreme Courtroom’s 50 per cent restrict on the whole reservation, suppressing a 1994 state enactment on reservation observing the apex court docket’s restrict.
Accordingly, it needs to be determined whether or not the UP Public Providers (Reservation For SC, ST And OBC) Act stands repealed by the adoption of the Central Instructional Establishments (Reservation in Lecturers’ Cadre) Act, 2019, which raises the reservation restrict past 50 per cent, the bench mentioned, framing a authorized query for adjudication over the problem.
The petitioner raised this authorized concern in her petition, along with her counsel Anuj Kudesia alleging that the UP authorities illegally amended the provisions of the 1994 state regulation which prescribes a fifty per cent reservation towards the vacancies existed in numerous departments.
He mentioned the state authorities amended the provisions of the state regulation by adopting the Central regulation via a September 2, 2019 notification geared toward enabling the varsity to order greater than 50 per cent of the vacant seats.
Opposing Kudesia’s arguments, the varsity counsel Anurag Singh submitted that following the Central authorities’s 2019 regulation which provides ten per cent extra reservation, the fifty per cent reservation restrict stands exceeded and the supply of the UP Public Providers (Reservation For Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes And Different Backward Lessons) Act, 1994 stands repealed.
The UP authorities’s counsel Alok Saran too adopted the LU counsel’s arguments.
Following the arguments and counter-arguments over the legality of the September 2019 commercial for filling up the 180 vacancies, the bench mentioned, “The controversy as as to whether the UP authorities’s September 2, 2019 order adopting the central enactment can repeal the UP Public Providers (Reservation For SC, ST and OBC) Act, 1994, requires consideration.”