[2011(1) ADJ 440 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH Court
BEFORE : F.I. REBELLO, C.J. AND VINEET SARAN, J.
HIZWANA BANO …..Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ….Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 69019 of 2010, decided on 26th November, 2010)
By the Court.—Admit.
By consent, heard forthwith.
In view of the order, which is proposed to be passed, notice to respondent No. 3 is dispensed with.
2. The petitioner was aggrieved by the caste certificate issued in favour of respondent No. 3. The post of Village Pradhan of Gaon Sabha-Lotha was reserved for female candidate of backward caste. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 3 obtained a caste certificate that she belongs to Muslim Kayasth, which has been issued by respondent No. 2. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 3 belongs to the caste ‘Sekh Firozi’. In the list of Other Backward Class, meant for the State of Uttar Pradesh, this caste has not been included in the category of backward class.
3. On 11.10.2010, the petitioner filed an application to the Assistant Election Officer contending that the caste certificate obtained by respondent No. 3 was forged. Similarly, on 30.10.2010, the petitioner filed a complaint before the respondent No. 2 for cancellation of the caste certificate issued in favour of respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 2, till today, has not taken any decision upon the complaint of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 is the only competent authority to cancel the forged certificate and since he has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him, the present writ petition.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
The State of Uttar Pradesh has issued a notification dated 5th January, 1996 in the matter of issuance of caste certificates in the State of U.P. The English translation of the said notification as per the Official Translation is being reproduced in its entirety and reads as under :
“Chapter 22 Received from General and Merger 1263
(89)
Personnel Section -2
No. 22/16/92 - Ka/1996 - T.C. 111
To,
Kalika Prasad, 1. All Principal Secretaries/Secretaries,
Secretary, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh
Govt. of U. P. 2. All Heads of Departments/Principal Heads of Offices,
Uttar Pradesh.
3. All Divisional Commissioners/District Magistrates,
Uttar Pradesh.
Lucknow: Dated 5th January, 1996
Subject : Caste Certificate for Reservation in Services under the State .
Sir,
I am directed to draw your attention to Govt. Order No. 484/Ka-1 941/1994, dated 29th March , 1994, in para 3 of which it was , in respect of the decision taken under Section 9 of Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes of Citizens in Uttar Pradesh Public Services Act 1994, intimated by the Government that ‘Caste Certificate’ required for laying claim for reservation in future shall be issued by District Magistrate/Additional District Magistrate/City Magistrate/Tehsildar of the area where the concerned candidate resides or where he was born . But in case of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes , such Certificate may be issued by any other stipendary Magistrate or by the District Social Welfare Officer of the Concerned District as well .
As enclosure to the said Government Order, proformas for the Caste Certificate prescribed by the Government were also issued, of which the proforma of the Caste Certificate for other Backward Classes of Uttar Pradesh has been amended vide proforma enclosed with Government Order No. 22/16/92 - Ka - 2 - 95 - T.C. dated 13th December 1995.
2. In continuation of the above I am directed to say that in compliance with the judgment passed on 2nd September, 1994 by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissoner Tribal, 1994 (6) SCC 241 and the Order dated 27th October, 1995 passed in pursuance thereof by Hon’ble High Court, Lucknow Bench Lucknow in Writ Petition No. 2884(M.P.) of 1995 - Dr. Anand Pratap Singh v. Uttar Pradesh and others, the following decisions laying down procedure have been taken by the Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 9 of the aforesaid Act :
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.