Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Prashant Kumar v. State of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 20476 of 2001 [2002] RD-AH 6 (20 March 2002)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


W.P. 20476 of 2002

Hon. M. Katju, J.

Hon. R. Tiwari, J.

The question involved in this case is whether the petitioner can claim

benefit of the provisions contained in U.P. Public Services (Reservation for

Scheduled castes, Scheduled Tribes & Other Back ward classes) Act, 1994 in

the combined state/subordinate services Examination-2000. the petitioner claims

that since the community Jaat has been notified as an other Backward class on

10.3.2000 he can and should be given the benefit of the provisions of section-3

read with section-4 of the Act of appearing at the main Examination for the

aforesaid recruitment. The Jat community was declared as OBC on 10.3.2000

and the preliminary Examination was held in May, 2000. A Division Bench in writ

petition No. 23193 of 2000, Km. Amrita Singh & others Vs.  State and another

decided on 7.5.2001 (vide Annexure 5 to the petition) held that the petitioner is

entitled to the benefit of being treated as OBC. Since preliminary and main

examination was held after the Jat community was declared as OBC, hence in

view of Section-15 of the U.P. Act No. 4 of 1994 aforesaid the petitioner is

entitled to be treated as OBC.

However, in another Division Bench decision in writ petition no. 6250

(M/B) of 2000 Pramod Kumar & another Vs. State & Ors. Decided on 26.3.2001 it

was held that at the time of the Advertisement the petitioner was not declared as

OBC and in the form filled up by him he did not claim the benefit of being treated

as OBC but he was permitted to appear in the said examination. It appears that

there is a conflict in these two Division Bench decisions and hence we are of the

opinion that the matter should be decided by a full Bench.

Let the papers of this case be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice

for constituting a full bench to reconcile the aforesaid Division Bench decisions.

In the meantime, one post of S.D.M. shall be kept vacant.



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.