Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR GRANTHALAYA EVAM JAN KALYAN SAMITI versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' PRINCIPAL SECY. U.P. KARMIK ANUBHAG AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Granthalaya Evam Jan Kalyan Samiti v. State of U.P. Thru' Principal Secy. U.P. Karmik Anubhag and another - PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. 76922 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 7845 (20 December 2005)

 

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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

HON. R.K. AGARWAL, J.

HON. SAROJ  BALA, J.

In the present writ petition which is in the nature of public interest litigation filed  by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Granthalaya Evam Jan Kalyan Samiti, Gorakhpur through its Vice President Mahesh Rama, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the notification dated 10 October, 2005 issued by the Governor of U.P. by which Schedule-1, appended to the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) Act 1994 (U.P. Act 4 of 1994) has been sought to be amended.  Certain castes, which were earlier included in Schedule-1, have been omitted and instead they have been included in Part 2 and Part 3, which have been newly inserted by the said Notification and by a deeming provision it has been provided that they shall be deemed to be and entitled to get benefit of Scheduled Castes instead of Backward Class under the Act.  The submission is that under clause 24 of Article 366, Scheduled Castes have been defined to mean such Castes, races or tribes or part of a group within such castes, races or tribes as deemed under Article 341 of the Constitution of India.  The President has been empowered after consultation with the Governor to satisfy the castes, races or tribes which shall for the purpose of this Constitution, be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State or Union Territory as the case may be.  According to the petitioner any alteration in the list of Scheduled Caste can be made only by the President and not by the Governor and therefore, the impugned Notification in so far as it provides benefit and treats certain classes of citizens as Scheduled Caste cannot be issued, it lacks the constitutional sanctity.

We have heard Sri S. Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State Government on the question of admission.

Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Chief Standing Counsel submitted that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of HP and others Vs. Mahendra Pratap and others 1995(2) SCC 731, the court may not be justified in restraining the State Government for implementing the provisions of the Act passed by the Legislature.  The aforesaid decision is of no help to the State of U.P. in as much as in the present case the Governor by the impugned notification has amended the Schedule in exercise of power conferred upon him under Section 13 of the Reservation Act 1994 (U.P. Act 4 of 1994).  As already pointed out prima facie the amendment made by the Governor appears to be unconstitutional being violative of Article 341 of the Constitution of India.  As an interim measure if the operation of the said notification is not stayed various persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste as has been notified by the President of India would be adversely affected as they would be deprived of their representation under the reservation policy.  Therefore, interim measure the operation of the notification dated 10 October, 2005 filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition, shall remain stayed.

The learned Chief Standing Counsel may file counter affidavit within three weeks and rejoinder affidavit within two weeks.

List thereafter.

20.12.2005

B.N.


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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