BALBIR SINGH AND ANOTHERversusSENA NAYAK 38 VAHINI P.A.C. AND OTHERS

              HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                            WRIT - A No. - 24188 of 1999

Balbir Singh And Another
                                                                           .....Petitioner(s)
                                        Versus
Sena Nayak 38 Vahini P.A.C. And Others
                                                                      .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)           :   Atipriya Gautam, Jarnardan Pd. Pandey,
                                        Sunita Sharma, Vinod Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)           :   S.C.

Court No. - 34
(Sl. No. 19)
                      HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Dilip
Kesarwani, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondent to join the petitioners in the requisite training of PAC on the basis of the
selection as made by the respondent themselves and after completion of the same
training to appoint the petitioner as Constable PAC in State of U.P. with all
consequential service benefit.

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling upon the
respondent to produce the copy of the order by which petitioners' recruitment for
the post of Constable of PAC have been cancelled and perusal thereof to quash
the same."

3. Vide order dated 25.11.1999, the instant writ petition was directed to be listed
alongwith Writ Petition No. 28277 of 1999 (Mangal Singh Vs., Sena Nayak 38th
Vahini, P.A.C. Aligarh and others). In the said connected petition, interim order
was passed on 16.7.1999, whereby the said petitioner was permitted to continue
their training subject to the final decision in the said writ petition. On the strength
of the order dated 25.11.1999, it is submitted by the petitioners that the petitioners
were also permitted to continue the training and thereafter was given appointment as
Constable in PAC and since then he was working as Constable in PAC during the
pendency of the instant petition.

4. The instant petition was filed on 1.2.2018. Pursuant thereto, it is submitted by
the petitioners that the petitioners were discharged from service. Later on, he filed
a restoration application alongwith the delay condonation application which was
                                                               WRIA No. 24188 of 1999
                                    2

allowed vide order dated 14.12.2020. Pursuant thereto, it is submitted by the
petitioners that they were again reinstated and is continuing in service.

5. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioners, herein, had applied for
the post of Constable in PAC pursuant to the advertisement dated 15.7.1998 as
candidates of Scheduled Tribe on the basis of the caste certificate issued in their
favour in the State of Rajasthan on 26.12.1996, wherein it was held that the
petitioners belong to the Meena community, which is a Scheduled Tribe in the
State of Rajasthan but the same is not notified as Scheduled Tribe in the State of
U.P. Being aggrieved, the instant petition was filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of
mandamus from the respondents to send them for training and give them
appointment with all consequential benefits. Thus, the sole issue involved in the
instant case is that whether the person who belongs to the Meena caste, which is
Scheduled Tribe in the State of U.P.

6. The issue in this regard is well settled by the Constitution Bench of the Apex
Court in Bir Singh Vs. Delhi Jal Board and others AIR 2018 SC 4077, wherein
the Apex Court has held as under:-

".... the benefits of reservation provided for by the Constitution would stand confined
to the geographical territories of a State/Union Territory in respect of which the lists
of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes have been notified by the Presidential Orders
issued from time to time. A person notified as a Scheduled Caste in State 'A' cannot
claim the same status in another State on the basis that he is declared as a Scheduled
Caste in State 'A'."

7. Similar issue was also dealt with by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-
A No. 34540 of 2003 (Ved Prakash Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others),
wherein the Coordinate Bench, relying upon the aforesaid judgment of Bir Singh
(supra) held that the petitioner being resident of State of Uttranchal could not
have been given benefit of reservation in the State of U.P.

8. Relying upon the aforesaid two judgments, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in
Writ-A No. 27296 of 1999 (Jagveer Vs. State of U.P. and others), which was
decided on 17.5.2019 has dismissed the writ petition where the identical
controversy was involved that a candidate of Meena community which was a
Scheduled Caste community notified in the State of Rajasthan and is not notified as
Scheduled Tribe in the State of U.P.

9. Likewise, another petition being Writ-A No. 38766 of 1998 (Vishan Pal and
others Vs. State of U.P. and others) was also dismissed on the same ground vide
order dated 30.11.2017. Against the order dated 30.11.2017, Special Appeal was
also filed being Special Appeal No. 711 of 2017 which has also been dismissed by
the Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment and order dated 11.3.2024,
                                                               WRIA No. 24188 of 1999
                                    3

relying upon another judmgent of this Court in Sunil Kumar Vs. Life Insurance
Corporation of India which took note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Union of India and others vs. Dudh Nath Prasad; AIR 2000 Supreme Court 525
as well as the judgment in Sanjay Kumar Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another; 2000 (3) AWC 2239. In para 9 of the judgment the Division Bench in Sunil
Kumar, held as under:-

"The President under Article 342 of the Constitution notifies the Tribes of a State as
Scheduled Tribe. It may be that in that State such Tribes on account of disadvantage
and social hardship suffered by that caste or group in that State is entitled for
declaration that they belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe but in another
State such hardship or social disadvantage may not exist and such State may not treat
such caste or tribe as Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. It may also be that such caste
or tribe is not residing in another Stat but if a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe of
another State seeks employment on the basis of an advertisement issued in another
State and such advertisement does not at all present a person belonging to Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe of another State, there is no bar that such person may be
permitted to appear in the examination for selection to the post advertised."

10. Taking note of the aforesaid decision, the Division Bench in Vishan
Pal (Supra) observed as under:-

6. The Division Bench has clearly noted that by virtue of Article 342 of the
Constitution of India a particular Tribe will have to be notified as a Scheduled Tribes
for a particular State. Though, passing observation has been made that such a person
belonging to Scheduled Tribes status may also claim appointment in another State, but
that observation will not be of any help to the appellants in the facts of the present
case. The Division Bench was apparently dealing with the case relating to
employment of the Life Insurance Corporation, which is an All India Service in the
facts of that case. The employment claimed by the appellants in this case is in the
Provincial Armed Constabulary, which is a State employment. The judgment of the
Division Bench, therefore, will have no applicability in the facts of the present case."

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners, herein, relying upon the Government
Orders dated 24.2.1994 as well as 20.9.2012 issued by the State Government,
wherein it has been directed that the persons belonging to the Scheduled Tribe
with regard to the Meena community of the State Rajasthan may also be issued
Scheduled Caste certificate in the State of U.P. On the strength of the aforesaid
Government Orders, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner
was also entitled for the Scheduled Tribe certificate to be issued in the State of
U.P. and consequently the benefit of reservation ought to have been granted to the
petitioner. From the judgment of the Apex Court in Bir Singh (supra) it is
apparent that the benefit of reservation will be available on the basis of the
declaration by the presidential order and not by the Government Orders issued in
                                                                                                   WRIA No. 24188 of 1999
                                                                        4

                                    this regard and the Presidential Order provides the applicability of the benefit of
                                    reservation for the Meena community only for the State of Rajasthan and not for
                                    the State of U.P. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, the petitioner cannot
                                    be given reservation in the State of U.P. being of Meena Community as Scheduled
                                    Tribe.

                                    12. It is further relevant to take note of the Writ-A No. 28277 of 1999 which was
                                    dismissed for want of prosecution on 4.8.2017 and no restoration/ recall application
                                    has been filed for recall of the order dated 4.8.2017. Therefore, with the dismissal
                                    of the said writ petition, interim order earlier granted in the said writ petition was
                                    vacated and this writ petition was tagged with Writ-A No. 7082 of 1999, which
                                    was also dismissed on 8.1.2016 and no restoration/ recall application has been filed
                                    for recalling the aforesaid order. Otherwise also, there was also no specific interim
                                    order in the case of the petitioner, herein.

                                    13. In such view of the matter, the relief claimed by the petitioner in the instant
                                    petition cannot be granted. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed.

                                    September 18, 2026
                                    n.u.
                                                                                                 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
NASEEM UDDIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad