O.P.GARG
ASHOK KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent
( 1 ) THE short question that arises for determination in the present petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India is whether a person who had taken birth in the family of Thakurs (Sawarns) can by virtue of his having been adopted in the family of Ahirs (backward class) be treated as belonging to the backward class and consequently entitled to the privileges. facilities and benefits available to the persons belonging to the Backward class. This question has cropped up in the backdrop of the following facts.
( 2 ) DR. Ashok Kumar. petitioner took birth on 1. 1. 1967 in the family of Thakurs. His natural father is Rushtam Singh son of Pothi Ram and the name of his natural mother is Smt. Bhagwan dei. resident of village Nalar Jamuni Bhan, Mazra Mauza Pheem Shree, Tehsil Fatehabad, district Agra. It is alleged that he was adopted by the friend of his father whose name incidentally is also Rushtam Singh son of Atar Singh belonging to Ahir caste, which admittedly is a Backward class, resident of Arsena. Tahsil Kirawali, District Agra on 25. 10. 1974, when the petitioner was aged about 8 years. A deed of adoption was also executed though it was not registered.
(
Khazan Singh v.Union of India and others
K.S. Jayasree v. State of Kerala
State of Karnataka and another v. K.B. Urushabendra Kumar and others
Director of Tribal Welfare Government of A.P. v. Laveti Giri, (1995) 4 SCC 32
REFERRED TO : C.M. Arumugan v. S. Gopal
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.