# Beche Lal v. Commissioner, Bareilly and others

- **Citation:** (2005) 1 ILRA 33
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2004-12-17
- **Bench:** Dr. B.S. Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/beche-lal-v-commissioner-bareilly-and-others-40364
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India
Article
226Selection of petition-under reserve quota
of S.T.-belonging to the cost of 'Meena'
in State of Rajasthan-but not in Uttar
Pradesh-appointment
cancelled-No
Cause
notice
required-benefit
of
reservation-can not be claimed.

Held: Para 12 & 15

Thus,
in
view
of
the
aforesaid
observations of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, it has to be held that the
petitioner-appellant cannot claim the
benefit of reservation as a Scheduled
Tribe on the sole basis that Meena caste
had been declared as a Scheduled Tribe
in the State of Rajasthan.

In view of the law laid down by the
Supreme Court, no other conclusion is
possible and, therefore, in our opinion,
the order impugned in the writ petition
cannot be quashed solely on the ground
that the principles of natural justice have
not been complied with.
Case law discussed:
JT 2000 (9) SC-502
AIR 1981 SC- 136
AIR 1970 SC-679
1990 (3) SCC-130
1994 (5) SCC-244
AIR 2000 SC 525
J.T. 1994 (4) SC-423
2003 (1) UPLBEC-349

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Beche Lal V. Commissioner, Bareilly and others
33
two months from the date a certified copy
of this order is placed before it.

The Writ petition is allowed. No
order as to costs.
Petition allowed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.12.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

Special Appeal (D) NO. 248 of 2003

State of U.P. and others

...Appellant
Versus
Sunil Kumar

...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
S.C.

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Vinod Sinha

Constitution
of
India
Article
226Selection of petition-under reserve quota
of S.T.-belonging to the cost of 'Meena'
in State of Rajasthan-but not in Uttar
Pradesh-appointment
cancelled-No
Cause
notice
required-benefit
of
reservation-can not be claimed.

Held: Para 12 & 15

Thus,
in
view
of
the
aforesaid
observations of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, it has to be held that the
petitioner-appellant cannot claim the
benefit of reservation as a Scheduled
Tribe on the sole basis that Meena caste
had been declared as a Scheduled Tribe
in the State of Rajasthan.

In view of the law laid down by the
Supreme Court, no other conclusion is
possible and, therefore, in our opinion,
the order impugned in the writ petition
cannot be quashed solely on the ground
that the principles of natural justice have
not been complied with.
Case law discussed:
JT 2000 (9) SC-502
AIR 1981 SC- 136
AIR 1970 SC-679
1990 (3) SCC-130
1994 (5) SCC-244
AIR 2000 SC 525
J.T. 1994 (4) SC-423
2003 (1) UPLBEC-349

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.)

1. This special appeal has been filed
against the judgment and order dated
07.10.2002 of a learned Judge, by which
the petition filed by the respondent has
been allowed only on the ground that he
had not been given an opportunity of
hearing
before
cancelling
his
appointment/training on the post of
Constable.

2. The facts and circumstances
giving rise to this case are that the
appellants
issued
an
advertisement
advertising 5225 vacancies of Constables
in Civil Police. The petitioner-respondent
applied in pursuance of the same. His
candidature was considered and he was
selected. However, he was not sent for
training on the ground that he was not
eligible to be selected in the reserved
category of Scheduled Tribes for the
reason that he belonged to the Meena
community which is a Scheduled Tribe in
the State of Rajasthan but not in State of
Uttar Pradesh. Feeling aggrieved, he filed
the writ petition which has been allowed
by the learned Single Judge only on the
ground that no show cause notice was
given to him before cancelling his
candidature. Hence, this special appeal.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
34
3. Undoubtedly, in the instant case,
petitioner had not been given any notice
or opportunity of hearing before passing
the
order
of
cancellation
of
appointment/training. In S.L. Kapoor Vs.
Jagmohan & Ors., AIR 1981 SC 136, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that
where on admitted or undisputed facts,
only one conclusion is possible and under
the law only one penalty is permissible,
the Court may not issue the writ to
compel the observance of the principles of
natural justice as it would amount to
issuing a futile writ.

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Aligarh Muslim University & Ors.
Vs. Mansoor Ali Khan etc., JT 2000 (9)
SC 502, also considered this aspect and
held that if no other conclusion was
possible on admitted or indisputable facts,
then it was not necessary to quash the
order passed in violation of the principles
of natural justice.

5. Similarly, in State of U.P. Vs. Om
Prakash Gupta, AIR 1970 SC 679, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that
the Courts have to see whether nonobservance of any of the principles
enshrined in statutory rules or principles
of natural justice have resulted in
deflecting the course of justice. Thus, it
can be held that even if in a given case
there has been some deviation from the
principles of natural justice but the same
has not resulted in grave injustice or has
not prejudiced the cause of the delinquent,
the Court may decline to interfere.

6. The basic fact therefore which is
required to be considered is whether the
petitioner-respondent was eligible to be
considered in the reserved category for
the post of Constable in Civil Police and
whether the show cause notice was
required to be given. This is because in a
given case, like this, we have to consider
whether it was possible for the respondent
to submit a reply that merely because his
caste was included as a Scheduled Tribe
in Rajasthan but not in the State of Uttar
Pradesh, he could still claim the benefit of
reservation in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
In our view, it was this issue which was
required to be examined.

7. Shri Vinod Sinha, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent submitted
that he is desirous that the issue may be
resolved by this Court as it would not be
possible for the authority concerned to
decide the same. With the consent of the
learned counsel for the parties, we
proceeded with the hearing of the case on
merit only on that issue.

8. A Constitution Bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Marri Chandra
Shekhar Rao Vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical
College & Ors., (1990) 3 SCC 130,
considered the case of admission of
students
in
a
Medical
College
in
Maharastra on the basis of the Scheduled
Caste Certificate issued by the State of
Andhra Praesh. The Hon'ble Apex Court
rejected the contention observing that a
person in one State may be Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe but he may not be
entitled for the benefit in another State.
Similarly, in Action Committee on Issue
of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes in the State of
Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. Union of India,
(1994) 5 SCC 244, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court examined the issue as to whether
the benefit and privilege to the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes in State of
Maharashtra was also available to the
persons belonging to other States and the
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] State of U.P. and others V. Sunil Kumar
35
Court held that it is for the State
Government to choose whether to give the
benefit of reservation or not for the reason
that the State Government is competent
enough
to
restrict
the
benefit
of
reservation to the persons belonging to the
reserved category provided they belong to
the said State and may not extend the
same to the candidates belonging to other
States for many reasons. The aforesaid
judgment clearly holds that a person
belonging to reserved category in State
"A" may not be able to claim the benefit
in State "B" unless State "B" also so
provides. Reservation depends on a large
number of considerations including the
social and financial status of a particular
community, which may be restricted to a
particular part of the State or even to a
particular part of a District and a person
belonging to the same community in a
part of a District or a part of the State,
may be denied the said rights in the other
parts. Therefore, whether the reservation
is to be provided or not, fall within the
exclusive domain of the State and no one
else has any right to so claim.

9. In Union of India & Ors. Vs.
Dudh Nath Prasad, AIR 2000 SC 525, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if a
candidate belonging to a particular
community has migrated at a very early
age to another State where his community
has been put under reserved category, he
may be entitled for the benefit of the
reservation policy.

10. Shri Vinod Sinha, learned
counsel for the appellant placed strong
reliance upon a Division Bench judgment
of this Court rendered on 24th April, 2004
in Writ Petition No. 22271 of 2000, Sunil
Kumar Vs. Life Insurance Corporation &
Ors., in support of his submissions that
the petitioner-appellant was entitled to the
benefit of a Schedule Tribe even though
the Meena Community had been declared
a Schedule Tribe in the State of Rajasthan
and not in the State of Uttar Pradesh. A
perusal of the aforesaid Division Bench
judgment indicates that it had placed
reliance upon another Division Bench
judgment of this Court in the case of
Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Anr., (2000) 1 UPLBEC 729.

11. We, however, find that the
aforesaid decision in the case of Sanjay
Kumar Singh (supra) has been set aside
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of U.P. Public Service Commission,
Allahabad Vs. Sanjay Kumar Singh,
(2003) 7 SCC 657 and, therefore, it is not
open to the petitioner-appellant to take the
benefit of the decision given in the case of
Sunil
Kumar
(supra).
The
Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the said case considered
whether it was open to the respondents to
claim the benefit of reservation in public
service in the State of Uttar Pradesh as a
member of Scheduled Tribe though
"Naga" was not specified Scheduled Tribe
in the State of U.P. and observed as
follows:-

"It may be noted that the reservation
in favour of Scheduled Tribes to the extent
of 2% is provided for by the U.P. Public
Services
(Reservation
for
Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other
Backward Classes) Act, 1994. There is no
particular definition of ''Scheduled Tribe'
in the Act. However, the term ''Scheduled
Tribe'
can
only
be
understood
in
accordance with the provisions of Article
342 read with the notifications issued
thereunder
as
interpreted
by
this
Court.........
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
36

The contention of the appellants
should therefore be accepted and the
appellant
cannot
be
treated
as
a
Scheduled Tribe candidate so as to
qualify himself to claim reservation
against
the
vacancy
reserved
for
Scheduled Tribe in public services in the
State of U.P. The view of the High Court
cannot be sustained as it goes counter to
the pronouncements of this Court. Hence
it is set aside and the appeals are allowed
without cost. However, in the peculiar
circumstances of the case, the ends of
justice would be met if the appellants are
directed to consider the case of the
respondent in general category and if in
comparison with the general category
candidates selected, the respondent had
secured higher marks/grading, he should
be offered appointment to an appropriate
post
against
one
of
the
existing
vacancies."

12. Thus, in view of the aforesaid
observations of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, it has to be held that the petitionerappellant cannot claim the benefit of
reservation as a Scheduled Tribe on the
sole basis that Meena caste had been
declared as a Scheduled Tribe in the State
of Rajasthan.

13. Reference may also be made to a
decision of the Supreme Court in the case
of State of Maharastra & anr. Vs. Union
of India & Anr., JT 1994 (4) SC 423, in
which it was held as follows:-

"It must also be realized that the
language of clause (1) of both the Articles
341
and 342 is
quite plain
and
unambiguous. It clearly states that the
President may specify the castes or tribes,
as the case may be, in relation to each
State or Union Territory for the purposes
of the Constitution. It must also be
realized that before specifying the castes
or tribes under either of the two Articles
the President is, in the case of a State,
obliged to consult Governor of that State.
Therefore, when a class is specified by the
President after consulting the Governor
of State A, it is difficult to understand how
that specification made ''in relation to
that State' can be treated as specification
in relation to any other State whose
Governor
the
President
has
not
consulted."

14. The aforesaid judgment was
followed by a Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Satpal Meena & Ors.
Vs.
State
of
U.P.
Public
Service
Commission & Ors., (2003) 1 UPLBEC
349, which related to Meena Caste and it
was sought to be contended, as in the
present case, that since the said caste was
considered as a Scheduled Tribe in
Rajasthan, it should also be considered as
a Scheduled Tribe in the State of U.P.
This plea was rejected by the Court.

15. In view of the law laid down by
the Supreme Court, no other conclusion is
possible and, therefore, in our opinion, the
order impugned in the writ petition cannot
be quashed solely on the ground that the
principles of natural justice have not been
complied with.

16. In view of the above, the special
appeal deserves to be allowed and the
order impugned is liable to be set aside.

17. The special appeal is, therefore,
allowed and the judgment and order dated
7th October, 2004 of the learned Judge of
this Court is set aside. However, as
directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] State of U.P. and others V. Sunil Kumar
37
the case of Sanjay Kumar Singh (supra)
the appellants are directed to consider the
case of the respondent in General
Category and if in comparison with the
General category candidates selected, the
respondent
had
secured
higher
marks/grading, he should be offered
appointment to an appropriate post
against one of the existing vacancies, if
any. The parties shall bear their own
costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.11.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIKRAM NATH, J.

Writ Petition No. 8573 of 1984

Sri Kripa Shankar & another ...Petitioners
Versus
The Vth Addl. District Judge and others

...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.K. Singh
Sri S.K. Singh
Sri M.N. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri R.K. Misra
Sri Neeraj Agarwal
Sri Vipin Saxena
C.S.C.

U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of
Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972-S. 21
(1)(a)_Constitution of India, Article 226Scope-Release application by landlordAllowed by Prescribed Authority-findings
affirmed in appeal- Writ by TenantRelease application filed 28 years agoNo attempt made by tenant to find out
alternative
accommodation-Held,
no
justification for tenant for continuing in
premises in findings of fact and do not
call for any interference by Writ CourtNo perversity or material illegality in
findings
shown
by
petitioner-Writ
dismissed.

Held: Paras 8 & 10

The tenant has to establish that he has
not been able to find out another
accommodation. In the present case the
tenant has not been able to show that he
made efforts for finding out alternative
accomodation but has not been able to
find out any other accommodation for
living in future. In any case the release
application was filed in the year 1976
and almost 28 years have passed. The
tenant has not been able to find out
another
alternative
accommodation.
There can be no justification for the
tenant for continuing in the premises in
dispute. The comparison of hardship
likely to be suffered by the tenant loses
its importance after a certain period and
specially after 28 years.

I have considered the rival submissions
made by
the parties. The
findings
recorded by the Prescribed Authority and
the Appellate Court are based upon the
material available on record. These are
findings of fact and do not call for any
interference by this Court. The petitioner
has not been able to show any perversity
or material illegality in the findings of
the Courts below. The petition has no
force and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Case law discussed:
1980 ARC 134
1980 ARC 140
1978 ARC 536
1978 ARC 355

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikram Nath, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
by the tenant against the judgment and
orders dated 09.02.1984 and 07.11.1977
passed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2
respectively, whereby the application for
release of the accommodation in dispute,