Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:109222 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 46786 of 2012 Petitioner :- Ravindra Pratap Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar,P.K. Upadhyay,Raj Karan Patel,Ranjeet Asthana,Satish Chandra Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- Jitendra Kumar Srivastava,S. Shekhar Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Heard Sri Ranjeet Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs: "(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the case and to quash the impugned order dated 22.12.2007 , passed by Regional Higher Education, Varanasi. (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Daftari and make the payment of salary admissible for the same, without consequential benefits. (iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the selection of respondent no.5 and also approval of their appointment dated 4.6.2014 passed by respondent no.3. (iv) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay salary and other consequential benefits attached to the post of petitioner in pursuance of selection dated 30.08.2007/appointment dated 5.9.2007." 3. Initially, the writ petition was considered and dismissed vide order dated 08.05.2012 wherein the coordinate Bench of this Court considered the assertions made in the counter affidavit that total strength of posts available for OBC category was 20 which were filled up while 9 persons were also working against the said posts in excess quota. The said order was contradicted by the division Bench of this Court in its order dated 08.09.2016 with the following observations: "Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having examined the records we may at the very outset record that very nomenclature of General Category is not the appropriate categorization of the post which do not fall with the Reserved Category. The appropriate description would be 'Open Category' meaning the category open to all including Reserved Category as per the merit of the candidate in the selection. In case a candidate belonging to Reserved Category is selected on his merit without being provided the benefit of reservation rule, it cannot be said that, still, he belongs to that reserved category or his appointment can still be treated having been made under the Reserved Category merely because he belongs to that category. Since the aforesaid aspects have not been examined by the learned Single Judge, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be legally sustained, it is, hereby, set aside. The appeal is allowed. The writ petition is restored to its original number. Let the writ petition be decided afresh at the earliest possible." 4. Accordingly, the matter once again was restored to its original number. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that the impugned order based on disapproval of the competent authority is non-speaking order and has not mentioned any particulars. Merely because the Management had not filled up backlog vacancy, approval has been rejected. 6. In fact, as assertion made in the affidavit shows that the petitioner was initially engaged by the Management on daily basis and he continue till 1989 in the said category. Subsequently, pursuant to the notification issued by the 4th respondent, the petitioner has made their applications and accordingly, selection was done and the petitioner was selected. Selection list for approval was sent to the 3rd respondent. Though the 3rd respondent rejected approval of selection of the petitioner only on the ground that backlog vacancies were not filled up but fact remains that the petitioner was selected pursuant to the notification and following the procedure, the 4th respondent selected the petitioner. In the said circumstances, the 3rd respondent cannot reject / disapprove appointments which were made by the 4th respondent in conformity with the Rules. 7. Once that be so, admittedly when there are vacancies available in the sanctioned posts, the 3rd respondent could direct the 4th respondent for filling up the posts instead of disapproving the appointments which were in other category. Even OBC can be selected in General category and anybody can be appointed in General category. 8. Despite having granted several opportunities, the respondents have not filed their counter affidavit, 9. In view of above, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded to the 3rd respondent to reconsider the issue and pass appropriate orders within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. If at all the 4th respondent has not followed the rule of reservation, the 3rd respondent shall direct the 4th respondent for initiation of the proceedings for filling up of vacancies in the reserved category. It is needless to mention that the 3rd respondent may release all consequential benefits to the petitioners. 10. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 Noman (Donadi Ramesh, J.) Digitally signed by :- NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad