Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

BHUDEV SHARMA versus DISTRICT JUDGE, BULANDSHAHR AND ANR.

Decided
31 October 2007
Judges listed
A.K. MATHUR (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)

Citations

Official
[2007] 11 S.C.R. 730 · 2007 INSC 1111
Also cited as
  • (2008) 1 SCC 233 (7 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

This appeal has been filed ag~inst c; the impugned judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 23.05.2001 in Special Appeal No. 445 of 2001. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

p. 731

2

The appellant is a blind man. He appeared in the recruitment test held in the year 1992 for selecting candidates for Class-III Posts in D Bulandshahr Judgeship in U.P. However, he was riot selected and hence he filed a writ petition which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court by his judgment dated 25.09.1997. Against that judgment the State Government filed a letters patent appeal which has been allowed by the impugned judgment by the Division Bench. Hence E this appeal.

p. 731

3

The appellant has relied on G.O. dated 26.08.1993 which is Annexure P-I to this appeal. That G.O. states that the U.P. Government has reserved 2 per cent posts for physically handicapped persons for direct F recruitment' in all groups of Government services. The physically handicapped persons are those who are blind, deaf and dumb and otherw·ise handicapped. There were altogether 30 posts for which the selection was held. 2 per cent of 30 is 0.6. Since 0.6 is more than half we round it off and hold that one out of the 30 posts is reserved for G physically handicapped persons. Since there was no other physically handicapped person who applied, in our opinion, the appellant was entitled ' to the post reserved for physically handicapped persons.

p. 731

4

In this v.iew of the matter, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment of the Division Bench is set aside and it is directed that the appellant be appointed on a Class-III Post in Bulandshahr Judgeship forthwith.

pp. 731–732

5

We are infonned that the appellant is already working on the post in view of the interim order of this Court. J:Ience he shall be regularized and allowed to continue working as a regular Class-III employee and shall be given all the consequential bene~~· K.K.T. Appeal allowed. "' ': ;; ) l

p. 732, margin A