Allahabad High Court
AAKRITI TURAIHA (MINOR)versusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as the petitioner must first approach the district committee and the court will not interfere with the Tehsildar’s rejection orders.
Summary
The petitioner, a minor represented through his father, challenged two orders dated 7 August 2025 and 22 January 2026 issued by the Tehsildar rejecting his applications for a caste certificate, alleging that the orders were unreasoned and contrary to a prior judgment in Mithlesh Kumar (Minor) v. State of U.P. The State argued that the petitioner had not appealed the first rejection before the district committee and therefore could not now contest the second rejection. The respondents further contended that the petitioner’s conduct—asserting Scheduled Caste/Tribe status for admission without a valid certificate—justified the rejections and that the appropriate remedy lay with the district committee. The Court examined whether the second rejection could be reviewed in light of the earlier judgment and the procedural requirements. Concluding that the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory remedy of approaching the district committee, the Court declined to interfere with the Tehsildar’s order. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the second rejection order dated 22 January 2026 can be challenged despite the petitioner not appealing the earlier rejection order before the district committee.
- Whether the Tehsildar’s rejection orders, issued without reasons, are liable to be set aside in view of the earlier judgment in Mithlesh Kumar (Minor) v. State of U.P.
- Whether the petitioner must first approach the district committee as the appropriate remedy before seeking judicial intervention.
Subjects
- caste certificate
- reservation
- writ petition
- minor
- administrative law
- district committee
- admission
- SC/ST
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 16041 of 2026
Aakriti Turaiha (Minor)
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Antriksh Verma
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rajesh Tripathi
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.
1. Mr. Antriksh Verma, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and
submits, his client is a minor who seeks to move this Court through his
father. Under challenge are orders dated 7th August, 2025 and 22nd January,
2026 passed by respondent no.4 (the Tehsildar) rejecting his applications for
issuance of caste certificate. The orders bear no reason. He relies on order
dated 13th May, 2025 of co-ordinate Bench disposing of Writ-C no.14919
of 2025 (Mithlesh Kumar (Minor) Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others). There
be direction as in paragraph 5 of said order. The paragraph is reproduced
below.
"5. In light of the above, it is clear that the rejection order is without any
basis in law. Accordingly, the impugned rejection order dated April 22,
2025 is quashed and set aside with a direction upon the Tehsildar to
reconsider the same in accordance with law. The petitioner may once
again provide the documents that may be sought by the Tehsildar. "
2. Mr. K.M. Mishra, learned advocate, Additional Chief Standing Counsel
appears on behalf of State. He opposes the writ petition on submission that
in spite of earlier rejection order dated 7th August, 2025 there was
subsequent application and accordingly again order of rejection dated 22nd
January, 2026. Petitioner did not appeal before the district committee against
the first rejection. He cannot now seek interference from Court on the
second rejection. Mr. Rajesh Tripathi, learned advocate appears on behalf of
respondent no.2 and submits, his client though made party in Mithlesh
Kumar (supra) was not heard. Genuine candidates holding caste certificates
are deprived admission because online admission forms are filled up
WRIC No. 16041 of 2026
2
asserting scheduled caste/tribe to obtain reservation and then applications for
the certificates resulting in rejection. He too opposes the writ petition.
3. On query Mr. Tripathi submits, petitioner has not yet been given
admission. Petitioner's conduct does not inspire us to exercise discretion and
interfere. He must find available remedy by approaching the district
committee. The Vidyalay would do well to require uploading of the
certificate in the admission application, instead of just an assertion.
4. With above observation, the writ petition is disposed of.
May 6, 2026
Kpy
(Arindam Sinha,J.)
(Satya Veer Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
KAVLESHWAR PRASAD YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…