Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.4.2012 passed by District Magistrate, Bijnor removing petitioner from post of Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Teep under Section 95 (1) (g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1947”) on the ground that seat was reserved for Scheduled Caste woman and petitioner contested the election claiming herself to be a Scheduled Caste candidate (caste Bajgi) though actually she does not belong to that caste and even the caste certificate dated 29.9.2010 alleged to have been issued by Tahasildar was not actually issued by him as has been confirmed by Tahasildar by letter No. 533@Vadd@tkfr@lR;kiu@2012 dated 6.1.2012. Therefore the very election of petitioner to the post of Gram Pradhan was void ab-initio.

2. Sri Madhyan learned counsel for petitioner contended that the impugned order has been passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice and on the basis of enquiry conducted against petitioner behind her back and hence is liable to be set aside. He submitted that neither the report submitted by Tahasilar was ever apprised to petitioner nor petitioner was confronted with any material which was against her and considered by District Magistrate in passing the impugned order. Reliance is placed on a Full Bench Judgement in Vivekanand Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, 2010 (10) ADJ 1, in support of submission that the procedure of enquiry as contemplated in Act, 1947 is mandatory and in case any order of removal has been passed without following the said procedure, it shall be illegal and void ab-initio.

3. It is not in dispute that petitioner belong to Bajigar caste which is declared to be scheduled caste in the State of Punjab. It is not so declared in the State of U.P. is also not disputed. Petitioner was married to Sri Lazza Ram, who belong to caste Bajgi which is scheduled cast in State of U.P. Without looking to the other questions, two questions which are relevant on the basis of facts averred in para 4 of writ petition would be:

(1) Whether a Scheduled Caste in one State can claim benefit of such status in another State in which he/she is not declared to be a Scheduled Caste.

(2) Whether by virtue of marriage, caste of a women would become that of husband entitling her to contest the election on a seat reserved for that caste or community.

4. So far as first question is concerned, the Apex Court has already replied this question in U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad v. Sanjai Kumar Singh, (2004) 1 UPLBEC 217, wherein it was held that an ordinarily residents of other State whose caste is not in the reserved category in the State of U.P. is not entitled to benefit of reservation even if they belong to the reserved category in their own State. A division bench of this Court earlier took the same view in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3936 of 2002 (Satpal Meena and others v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and others) decided on 5.9.2002. The above authorities have been relied and followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 26044 of 2000 (Mohd Hassan Jafri v. The Director of Higher Education U.P. Allahabad and others) decided on 2.4.2004.

5. Coming to the second question, this is also no more res integra having been answered by Apex Court in Sandhya Thakur v. Vimla Devi Kushwaha, (2005) 2 SCC 731, wherein the Apex Court observed has under:

“...the appellant, who by birth did not belong to a backward class or community, would not be entitled to contest a seat reserved for a backward class or community, merely on the basis of her marriage to a male of that community. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the argument that the appellant was entitled to contest a seat reserved for a backward community merely because of her marriage to a person belonging to the Namdev community or caste.”

6. It is, thus, evident that in view of admitted facts as stated in paras 4 and 5