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

DR. NANDA BALLABH PATHAK versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Decided
12 July 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 546 · 1996 INSC 733

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. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted.

p. 546, margin F

This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated May 24, 1995 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 401/92. The appellant was working as a Hindi Pandit in the L.T. Grade. The Bazpur Cooperative Sugar Factory Inter College, Bazpur District Nainital was upgraded from High School. Four posts, including the post of a Hindu pandit, were sanctioned for recruitment. The appellant is an M.A., Ph.D. in Hindi. He staked his claim for promotion to that post. It was not acceded to. Consequently, he filed the writ petition in the High Court. The learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have negatived his claim. Thus this appeal by special leave.

pp. 546–547, margin F

The only question involved in this case is : whether the appellant is eligible for appointment as a Hindu Pandit in the intermediate college. Shri Pramod Swamp, learned counsel for the appellant contended that since one Smt. Lila Singh was already working in the school as a Sanskrit teacher, insisting upon his having B.A. degree in Sanskrit is contrary to the statutory rules and that, therefore, the High Court was not right in rejecting his abovesaid claim. We find no force in the contention. It is seen that smt. Lila Singh is working as Sanskrit teacher in the High School but not in the college. As a consequence, when the vacancy had arisen for Hindi Pandit in the college, admittedly, the qualification prescribed is M.A. in Hindi arid B.A. in Sanskrit, apart from B.Ed., since both Hindi and Sanskrit are to be taught by the same teacher in the college. Admittedly, the appellant did not possess B.A degree in Sanskrit. Under those circumstances, rejection of his claim cannot be said to be vitiated by any error of law. In addition, the High Court has also pointed out that the Management had slated in their-affidavit filed in the High Court that the said post was reserved for the Scheduled Caste and was notified by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission. His claim was rejected on that ground also. Under these circumstances, 've do not think that it is a case warranting interference.

p. 547, margin A

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.

p. 547, margin E