CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Vicse Verma and Another vs State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 6 December 2010 · Citation: (2011) 2 ADJ 111 : (2011) 4 AWC 3407 : (2011) 1 UPLBEC 830

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.P. Sahi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14, 341, 342
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 65949 of 2010
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 383 words

A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Both of them belonging to the Bhar Community (Rajbhar caste). It is admitted to the Petitioners that they are denotified castes in the State of U.P. It is also admitted that they do not find mention in the Presidential Notification issued by the Government as per Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India.

2.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners have been granted admission, they have paid their fees and they have been pursuing their course for more than four months and therefore, the cancellation of the Petitioners'' admissions and telling them to not pursue their studies and vacate the hostel is unjustified.

3.

The grounds taken are that the action is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and even otherwise it is in violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, no notice or opportunity was given to the Petitioners prior to passing of the said orders. It is further submitted that the denotified tribe of Bhar has been for the purpose of education treated to be a scheduled tribe but for the purpose of reservation in public services they have been treated to be of the other backward category. In this view of the matter the contention raised is that the Petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the scheduled tribe category and cancellation of their admission is erroneous.

4.

This issue was settled long back by a Division Bench in the case of Vijay Prakash Vs. State of U.P. and Others, affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge reported in Vijay Prakash Vs. State of U.P. and Others, A perusal of the paragraph 16 of the judgment in the case of Vijay Prakash (supra) has categorically ruled that in the absence of any such Presidential Notification the claim made by the Petitioners to treat them to be scheduled tribe, cannot be accepted. This position has been reiterated in a recent decision in the case of State of U.P. and Ors. v. Shiv Kumar Bharadwaj and Ors. 2010 (2) ADJ 854.

5.

In view of the aforesaid declared position of law which is binding on this Court as well, the claim of the Petitioners cannot be accepted.

6.

The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.