# Arvind Kumar Raji v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 12 ILRA 598
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-12-06
- **Case number:** Writ -A No. 5200 of 2008
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/arvind-kumar-raji-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51288
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Post of Driver -
Cancellation of appointment - Petitioner
belongs to 'Patharcut' (Kanjar) caste,
which comes under the Scheduled Caste
category - However, Schedules Tribes
caste certificate was used to obtain
appointment
-
Subsequently,
the
authority proceeded to cancel the ST
caste
certificate
granted
to
the
petitioner,
which
has
not
been
challenged - No opportunity of hearing
was
given
before
cancellation
of
appointment - Effect - Held, it cannot be
said
that
order
of
cancellation
of
petitioner's appointment is illegal or
arbitrary, as reservation in service is to
be granted strictly to the persons who
belong to that particular category and
certainly any attempt by any individual to
fabricate any document falsely showing
himself to belong to a particular caste or
community, deserves to be dealt strictly
in accordance with law. (Para 8 and 11)
12 All. Arvind Kumar Raji Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
599
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

Kumari Madhuri Patil & ors. Vs Additional
Commissioner, Tribal Development & ors.;
(1994) 6 SCC 241

## Text

598 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
have in their possession any credible or
actionable material. Only the fact that the
petitioner was charged with a serious
offence has prevented the State authorities
to act with objectivity. We find no reason
exists with the respondents to continue to
entertain a belief or suspicion that the
petitioner is a person who lacks good moral
character to hold judicial office. The
unfortunate circumstance of the petitioner
having faced two criminal trials, cannot be
cited as that reason.

36.

The
petitioner
was
"honourably acquitted" at two criminal
trials faced by him and no element of truth
was found in the prosecution story, in either
case. Those orders have attained finality.
On all vital aspects of allegation of
violation of Official Secrets Act, we find
that the lingering sense of suspicion with
the State authorities, is to be equated with
figment of imagination and nothing more.

37. In view of the above, the writ
petition must succeed. It is allowed. The
communication
dated
26.09.2019
(Annexure No.11) is quashed. Mandamus is
issued to respondent no. 1 to ensure
Character Verification of the petitioner
within
a
period
of
two
weeks.
Consequentially, upon completion of all
formalities, appointment letter may be
issued to the petitioner not later than 15th
January 2025. The petitioner may be
appointed against existing vacancies, as on
date. This modified relief we have granted
because though selected against vacancy of
2017, neither those vacancies survive in the
light of the provision of U.P. HJS Rules and
also, the petitioner does not have any work
experience in the HJS cadre for the last
seven years. Grant of larger relief may be
detrimental both to the progression of the
petitioner in service and also to the working
of the cadre and its morale.

38. The writ petition is allowed as
above. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 598
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ -A No. 5200 of 2008

Arvind Kumar Raji ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
I.P. Singh, M.P. Raju

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Post of Driver -
Cancellation of appointment - Petitioner
belongs to 'Patharcut' (Kanjar) caste,
which comes under the Scheduled Caste
category - However, Schedules Tribes
caste certificate was used to obtain
appointment
-
Subsequently,
the
authority proceeded to cancel the ST
caste
certificate
granted
to
the
petitioner,
which
has
not
been
challenged - No opportunity of hearing
was
given
before
cancellation
of
appointment - Effect - Held, it cannot be
said
that
order
of
cancellation
of
petitioner's appointment is illegal or
arbitrary, as reservation in service is to
be granted strictly to the persons who
belong to that particular category and
certainly any attempt by any individual to
fabricate any document falsely showing
himself to belong to a particular caste or
community, deserves to be dealt strictly
in accordance with law. (Para 8 and 11)
12 All. Arvind Kumar Raji Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
599
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

Kumari Madhuri Patil & ors. Vs Additional
Commissioner, Tribal Development & ors.;
(1994) 6 SCC 241

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Sri I.P. Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. By means of present writ
petition the petitioner has challenged
legality and validity of order dated
23.08.2008, passed by the Special Radio
Officer
(Administration),
Police
Head
Quarter,
Lucknow
whereby
the
appointment of petitioner on the post of
Assistant Driver dated 15.11.2007 has been
cancelled.

3. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that petitioner
was
appointed
on
the
basis
of
advertisement in pursuance to which
petitioner applied for appointment on the
post of Driver. He has undergone physical
test and submitted all the document
including his caste certificate indicating
that petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe
category by certificate dated 15.02.2023
was submitted by him. Subsequently, the
petitioner has appeared in the written test
followed by interview where he stood
successful and was appointed on the post of
Assistant Driver by means of order dated
17.11.2007. The petitioner continued to
discharge his duties as Assistant Driver in
pursuance
to
the
interim
order
till
impugned order dated 23.08.2008 was
passed cancelling his appointment on the
ground that it is in the meanwhile that his
caste certificate dated 17.11.2007 was
revisited by the Tehsildar, Mehmoodabad,
Sitapur and was cancelled by order dated
24.03.2008. When the appointing authority
of the petitioner came to know that
appointment
has
been
obtained
by
petitioner on the basis of caste certificate
which has already been cancelled, he
proceeded to pass the impugned order of
cancellation.

4. The sole ground raised by the
petitioner while assailing the impugned
order is that petitioner was never afforded
opportunity of hearing prior to cancelling
his appointment order. On filing of present
writ petition, an interim order was passed
on 29.08.2008, staying the operation of the
order of cancellation of appointment dated
23.08.2008 and on the strength of interim
order the petitioner continued to work and
discharge his duties till 26.12.2023 as the
writ petition was dismissed for want of
prosecution on 30.10.2023. Subsequently,
on an application given by the petitioner
the
writ
petition
was
restored
on
08.04.2024 and now same has been listed
for hearing.

5. Considering the submissions
made by learned counsel for the petitioner
that no opportunity of hearing was given to
him and therefore by cancelling his order of
appointment, prejudice has been caused to
him by not affording opportunity of
hearing. Had opportunity of hearing been
provided to the petitioner, he would have
placed before the authority material that
order of cancellation of caste certificate
itself is illegal and arbitrary and same has
been passed on incorrect appreciation of
facts.

6.

Perusal
of
order
dated
24.03.2008
passed
by
the
Tehsildar,
Mehmoodabad, Sitapur which has been
600 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
annexed by the State alongwith counter
affidavit, indicates that same is based on
the directions of this Court passed in Writ
Petition No. 8788 (M/B) of 2007 which
was preferred by the petitioner. Paragraph 4
of the present writ petition wherein prayer
made by the petitioner in Writ Petition
No.8788
(M/B)
of
2007
has
been
mentioned, is quoted herein below :-

"4. That it is submitted that
a writ petition no. 8788 (M/B) of
2007 was filed by the petitioner
with the following prayer :-
(i) Issue a writ, order or
direction
in
the
nature
of
Mamdamus thereby commanding
the opposite parties to issue the
caste certificate, being Scheduled
Tribe of Raji caste to the petitioner
with immediate effect in the interest
of justice.
(ii) Issue any other order or
direction which this Court may
deem just fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case.
(iii) Allow the writ petition
with cost."

7. Considering the directions
passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.
8788 (M/B) of 2007, on 25.01.2007, the
authority has proceeded to consider the
aspect of grant of caste certificate to the
petitioner. While considering the issue, a
detailed inquiry was held and entire
relationship of the petitioner was duly
inquired. Evidence of his father and other
relatives
was
also
recorded
by
the
competent authority as well as declaration
made by the petitioner with regard to his
relations was also considered.

8. Without dwelling into the
controversy on merits, it was noticed by the
authority
that
there
was
severe
discrepancies in the statement made by the
petitioner before the competent authority
vis-a-vis what was disclosed by petitioner's
father and other relatives with regard to
caste of petitioner. After examining entire
relationships of the petitioner with other
persons and considering the caste of all the
persons it was concluded that infact
petitioner belong to "Patharcut" (Kanjar)
caste which comes under the Scheduled
Caste category and therefore the authority
proceeded to cancel the Scheduled Tribe
caste certificate granted to the petitioner on
15.02.2003.

9. Accordingly, from the perusal of
order dated 24.03.2008, it is evident that
due opportunity of hearing was given to the
petitioner before cancelling his caste
certificate. The competent authority i.e.
Tehsildar
after
fully
complying
the
directions
of
the
writ
Court
dated
25.01.2008, which was passed on the writ
petition filed at the behest of the petitioner
and
accordingly
cancelled
the
caste
certificate of petitioner.

10. There is no material on record,
which could indicate that order dated
24.03.2008 was ever challenged by the
petitioner before any other forum or before
any other authority as provided for in the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Kumari Madhuri Patil & Others
Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal
Development and Others, (1994) 6 SCC
241.

11. It has been further disclosed in
the
writ
petition
that
order
dated
24.03.2008 was assailed by the petitioner in
Writ Petition No. 7047 of 2008 which writ
petition has been dismissed as withdrawn.
Subsequently,
there
is
no
material
12 All. Pramod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
601
indicating that either petitioner has
challenged the said order before any higher
forum or that the said order has been
canceled or modified. Considering the fact
that petitioner was granted appointment on
the ground that he belonged to Scheduled
Tribe category and subsequently the said
certificate has been cancelled and hence it
cannot be said that order of cancellation of
petitioner's
appointment
is
illegal
or
arbitrary, as reservation in service is to be
granted strictly to the persons who belong
to that particular category and certainly any
attempt by any individual to fabricate any
document falsely showing himself to
belong to a particular caste or community,
deserves to be dealt strictly in accordance
with law.

12. This Court is of the considered
view that no prejudice in any manner by
order dated 23.08.2008 has been caused to
the petitioner inasmuch as full opportunity
of hearing was afforded by the competent
authority to the petitioner to defend his
caste certificate issued to him previously.
Considering that even challenge made to
the said order has not been successful and
order of cancellation is still in vogue, it
cannot be said that the impugned order of
cancellation of appointment suffers from
any infirmity.

13. The only contention of the
petitioner is that due opportunity of hearing
was not given, which has caused prejudice
to
him.
This
argument,
on
due
consideration, fails on the face of it. The
perusal of the order of cancellation of caste
certificate
dated
24.03.2008
clearly
indicates that full opportunity was given to
the petitioner to defend his case, in
compliance of which, Tehsildar held an
inquiry and subsequently cancelled his
caste certificate, which further became the
basis of passing of impugned order of
cancellation
of
appointment
dated
23.08.2008.

14. The petitioner has not
challenged the order dated 24.03.2008,
which stands as the basis and reason for
cancellation of his appointment vide order
dated 23.08.2008. The onus to prove that
prejudice has been caused falls upon the
petitioner who failed to do so. As neither
prejudice has been caused nor miscarriage
of justice has been proved, hence no
interference is warranted by this Court in
this regard.

15. The writ petition being devoid
of merits, is dismissed.

16. However, it is provided that in
case any order is passed by the competent
authority setting aside the order of
cancellation of caste certificate dated
24.03.2008, the petitioner shall have liberty
to bring the said order on record and prefer
appropriate application for review of the
instant order, if so advised.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 601
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ -A No. 16300 of 2024

Pramod Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mr. Dinesh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents: