# Dr. Madhu Rana v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2010) 1 ILRA 323
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-04-22
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.52252 of 2007
- **Bench:** Sunil Ambwani, K.N.Panday
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-madhu-rana-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41469
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India
Act-226-Cost
certificate issued by Jharkhand State-not
admissible in another-state Jharkhand as
well as in U.P. 'Kohri' cost recognized as
Backward Cost-Cost certificate issued by
with name of his father-valid-rejection of
candidature
by
commission-illegal
Quashed.

Held: Para 7

In U.P. Public Service Commission Vs.
Sanjay Kumar Singh (Supra), it was held
by the Supreme Court that person
certified as SC/ST in relation to one
State, if migrates to another State,
would
not
be
entitled
to
benefits
available to SCs/STs in the State in
which
he
migrated
unless
he/she
belongs to SC/ST in that State also. In
the present case sub caste 'koheri' falls
under the category of Other Backward
Class both in the States of U.P. and
Jharkhand. The Government Order dated
17.5.1984 providing for admissibility of
caste certificate in the name of a father
also does not prohibit the petitioner to
be as Backward Class as she belongs to
the same caste even after her marriage.
The certificate issued in the name of her
father is a valid certificate for the
purpose of admissibility of the caste of
the petitioner.
Case Law discussed:
[2003 SCC (L&S) 1081], Writ Petition No.297
of 2008 (S/B) decided on 16.12.2008.

## Text

1 All] Dr. Madhu Rana V. State of U.P. and others
323
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.04.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE K.N.PANDAY, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.52252 of 2007

Dr. Madhu Rana

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Khare
Sri V.D. Shukla
Shri Anand Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri V.P. Varshney
Sri Pushpendra Singh
CSC.

Constitution
of
India
Act-226-Cost
certificate issued by Jharkhand State-not
admissible in another-state Jharkhand as
well as in U.P. 'Kohri' cost recognized as
Backward Cost-Cost certificate issued by
with name of his father-valid-rejection of
candidature
by
commission-illegal
Quashed.

Held: Para 7

In U.P. Public Service Commission Vs.
Sanjay Kumar Singh (Supra), it was held
by the Supreme Court that person
certified as SC/ST in relation to one
State, if migrates to another State,
would
not
be
entitled
to
benefits
available to SCs/STs in the State in
which
he
migrated
unless
he/she
belongs to SC/ST in that State also. In
the present case sub caste 'koheri' falls
under the category of Other Backward
Class both in the States of U.P. and
Jharkhand. The Government Order dated
17.5.1984 providing for admissibility of
caste certificate in the name of a father
also does not prohibit the petitioner to
be as Backward Class as she belongs to
the same caste even after her marriage.
The certificate issued in the name of her
father is a valid certificate for the
purpose of admissibility of the caste of
the petitioner.
Case Law discussed:
[2003 SCC (L&S) 1081], Writ Petition No.297
of 2008 (S/B) decided on 16.12.2008.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri V.D.
Shukla
for
the
petitioner.
Learned
standing counsel appears for respondent
Nos. 1 and 2. Sri V.P. Varshney, learned
counsel appears for the U.P. Public
Service Commission - respondent No.3.

2. The petitioner has applied for the
post of Medical Officer (Ayurved &
Unani) in pursuance to the advertisement
No. 1/2003-04 issued by the U.P. Public
Service
Commission,
published
in
Employment News dated 21 - 27 June
2003.
Her
candidature,
as
Other
Backward Class (OBC), has not been
accepted by the Commission by its
communication dated 31.8.2007 on the
ground that her caste certificate has been
issued from the State of Jharkhand.

3. The petitioner belongs to 'koheri'
sub caste, which is mentioned at Sl. No. 7
of Schedule 1 of the Uttar Pradesh Public
Services
(Reservation
for
Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other
Backward Classes) Act 1994. Her father
was permanently residing at Village
Arsande, Post Khanke, District Ranchi in
the State of Jharkhand. She was issued a
caste certificate dated 19.9.1997 by the
competent authority, giving the name of
her father Sri Nand Kishore Rana,
324 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
belonging to sub caste 'koheri' and falls
under the category of Backward Class.
She got married to Dr Bhola Nath Maurya
at Varanasi on 27.4.2003. The marriage
was registered at Allahabad as per
certificate dated 1.7.2003. She claims that
at present she is residing at village
Chanderpur, Basmahua, Tehsil Phoolpur,
District Allahabad, and has been issued a
caste
certificate
by
the
Tehsildar,
Phoolpur on 11.7.2003 also belonging to
OBC, through her husband, giving the
name of her husband as Sri Bhola Nath
Maurya.

4. In the counter affidavit of Dr. Jai
Shankar
Shukla,
Incharge
Medical
Officer, Government Ayurvedic Hospital,
Allahabad filed on behalf of respondent
Nos. 1 and 2, it is stated that the Public
Service Commission has rejected her
application and that proper answer will be
given by the Commission.

5. Sri V.P. Varshney, counsel for the
Public Service Commission, on the basis
of instruction received by him from the
Commission after seeking clarification
from the State Government, would submit
that under Government Order dated
17.5.1984 it is clear that caste certificate
is to be issued on the basis of birth, and it
should have been issued in the name of
father and further that caste certificates
issued by other State are not applicable in
the State of U.P.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
relied upon a Supreme Court decision in
the
case
of
U.P.
Public
Service
Commission Allahabad Versus Sanjay
Kumar Singh [2003 SCC (L&S) 1081]
and a judgement of Uttrakhand High
Court in Jyoti Bala Versus State of
Uttarakhand and another in writ
petition No. 297 of 2008 (S/B) decided on
16.12.2008 - Special Leave Petition
arising out of the said judgement was
dismissed on merits by the Supreme
Court.

7.

In
U.P.
Public
Service
Commission Vs. Sanjay Kumar Singh
(Supra), it was held by the Supreme Court
that person certified as SC/ST in relation
to one State, if migrates to another State,
would not be entitled to benefits available
to SCs/STs in the State in which he
migrated unless he/she belongs to SC/ST
in that State also. In the present case sub
caste 'koheri' falls under the category of
Other Backward Class both in the States
of U.P. and Jharkhand. The Government
Order dated 17.5.1984 providing for
admissibility of caste certificate in the
name of a father also does not prohibit the
petitioner to be as Backward Class as she
belongs to the same caste even after her
marriage. The certificate issued in the
name of her father is a valid certificate for
the purpose of admissibility of the caste
of the petitioner.

8. An interim order was passed in
this case on 25.10.2007 whereby the
petitioner was permitted to appear in the
interview, but her result was not declared
without leave of the court.

9. The writ petition is allowed. The
letter
of
the
U.P.
Public
Service
Commission dated 31.8.2007 rejecting the
petitioner's candidature for OBC category
is quashed. The Commission will declare
the result of the petitioner treating her to
be OBC candidate.
---------
1 All] Dr. U.C. Maheshwari V. Mathura/Virndavan Development Authority and another
325
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.04.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMITAVA LAHA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35372 of 1998
Dr. Umesh Chandra Maheshwari ...Petitioner
Versus
Mathura/Vrindavan
Development
Authority and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri J.J. Munir
Sri Amit Daga
Sri M.K. Gupta

Counsel for the respondents :
Smt. Sunita Agarwal,
Sri R.N. Pandey and
Standing Counsel.

Uttar Pradesh Planning of Development
Act
1973-Sanction
of
map-claim
of
betterment
charges-without
such
betterment of locality as per section 35
and 36 of Act- no any regulation or by
laws framed to that extant-held-levy of
betterment charges-illegal.
Held: Para 11
Even under Section 57 of the Act the
authority has power to make bye-laws.
Therefore, it is crystal clear that either in
the case of development fees or in the
case of betterment charges the rules,
regulations and bye-laws have to be
framed to attract the same. A decision by
the Board without sanction of the
authority
to
claim
the
external
development charge is without any
sanction of law. More particularly, there
are no words available in the Act by the
name
of
"external
development
charges".
The
words
"external
development
charges"
are
either
synonyms
or
as
far
as
closer
to
'betterment fees' since it relates to the
area external to the building concerned,
which has been developed on the basis
of the sanctioned plan upon payment of
charges, being
development charges
amongst others. If such betterment
charge
is
being
claimed
then
the
authority has to satisfy that there is a
betterment of the locality in compliance
with Sections 35 and 36 of the Act. But if
no such development is done to claim
the betterment charges and no rules, no
regulations and no bye-laws are framed
to that extent, obviously the claim in the
name of external development happens
to be external to the law and a claim to
enrich the authority unjustly, therefore,
such claim can not be held to be
sustainable. Hence, the notices/orders
impugned in this writ petition are liable
to be quashed and are quashed. Thus,
the writ petition is allowed, however,
without imposing any cost.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amitava Lala, ACJ)

1. The petitioner has filed this writ
petition with the following prayers to
issue:

"(i) a writ, order or direction, including a
writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing
the impugned order dated 8.9.1998 passed
by the respondent no. 1 (annexure -4) and
the order dated 23.9.1998 passed by the
respondent No. 1 (annexure-7);
(ii) a writ, order or direction in the nature
of mandamus, restraining the respondents
from demanding from the petitioner an
amount of Rs.4,71,995/- as development
charge and the amount of Rs.2,35,997.50
as interest on the said amount, in any
manner, whatsoever;
(iii) any other writ, order or direction as
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case;
and
(iv) award costs of the petition to the
petitioner."