# Hari Ram Meena v. The General Manager & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 1357
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-03-21
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 29075 of 2009
- **Bench:** Saurabh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/hari-ram-meena-v-the-general-manager-ors-50053
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Service Law - dismissal order under
challenge- appointment obtained wrongly
on the strength of reservation-Article 342
of the Constitution of India-President
notifies the tribes of State as Scheduled
Tribes-caste certificate not invalid only
because the petitioner does not reside in
the village-being a central government
service-benefit of reservation available
throughout the State-verification of caste
certificate to be carried out by District
Level
and
State
Level
Screening
Committee-no such determination made
in the instant case-impugned orders held
to be illegal-quashed- petition allowed.

HELD:
After hearing the rival contentions as raised by
the learned counsel for the parties the
controversy as raised in the present petition has
to be testified on the basis of the proposition of
law as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. Additional
Commissioner AIR 1995 Supreme Court 94
wherein it is specifically held that in case of
verification of caste certificate with regard to its
genuineness the District Level and State level
screening
committee
as
already
been
constituted by the Government of India, in case
if any establishment is having doubt with regard
to the caste certificate pertaining to SC/ST the
same may be referred to District level screening
committee
which
is
the
only
competent
authority to comment upon the caste certificate
of SC/ST.

There is hardly any reference of any Inquiry
Report or the determination made by the
District Level Screening Committee over the
issue of Caste certificate of the petitioner as
such the entire proceedings as initiated in the
shape
of
disciplinary
proceedings
which
1358 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
culminated into the order dated 31.10.2007
through which the services of the petitioner has
been dismissed and the same has been upheld
at the level of appeal vide order dated
20.2.2009.

Petition allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. Hari Ram Meena Vs. The General Manager & Ors.
1357

16. In the given facts, it is admitted
that
the
minimum
family
pension
computed as per the Railways was at Rs.
11776/- inclusive of dearness allowance
as applicable on the date of death of the
pensioner and on the said date the
monthly salary of the petitioner was at
Rs. 10912/-.

17. In the circumstances, we are of
the opinion that the petitioner has been
subjected to unnecessary harassment by
the
respondent-Railway
authorities.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

18. The respondents shall compute
the pension admissible to the petitioner
w.e.f. 23 October 2013 and the same shall
be paid month to month. The arrears of
pension shall be released within one
month from date along with interest @
8% per annum, on the due amount from
the due date.

19. Cost of litigation assessed at Rs.
25,000/- to be paid by the second
respondent-General
Manager,
North
Central
Railway,
Allahabad
to
the
petitioner within the same period.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 1357
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-A No. 29075 of 2009

Hari Ram Meena ...Petitioner
Versus
The General Manager & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Satish Mandhyan, Sri Kuldeep Kumar,
Sri Kumar Anish, Sri Pankaj Misra, Sri Ram
Chandra Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Govind Saran, Sri Govind Srivastava, Sri
Rajnish Kumar Rai, Sri Sudhir Bharti, Sri
P.N. Rai

Service Law - dismissal order under
challenge- appointment obtained wrongly
on the strength of reservation-Article 342
of the Constitution of India-President
notifies the tribes of State as Scheduled
Tribes-caste certificate not invalid only
because the petitioner does not reside in
the village-being a central government
service-benefit of reservation available
throughout the State-verification of caste
certificate to be carried out by District
Level
and
State
Level
Screening
Committee-no such determination made
in the instant case-impugned orders held
to be illegal-quashed- petition allowed.

HELD:
After hearing the rival contentions as raised by
the learned counsel for the parties the
controversy as raised in the present petition has
to be testified on the basis of the proposition of
law as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. Additional
Commissioner AIR 1995 Supreme Court 94
wherein it is specifically held that in case of
verification of caste certificate with regard to its
genuineness the District Level and State level
screening
committee
as
already
been
constituted by the Government of India, in case
if any establishment is having doubt with regard
to the caste certificate pertaining to SC/ST the
same may be referred to District level screening
committee
which
is
the
only
competent
authority to comment upon the caste certificate
of SC/ST.

There is hardly any reference of any Inquiry
Report or the determination made by the
District Level Screening Committee over the
issue of Caste certificate of the petitioner as
such the entire proceedings as initiated in the
shape
of
disciplinary
proceedings
which
1358 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
culminated into the order dated 31.10.2007
through which the services of the petitioner has
been dismissed and the same has been upheld
at the level of appeal vide order dated
20.2.2009.

Petition allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1. U.O.I. Vs Doodh Nath Prasad AIR 2000 SC
525

2.Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs St. of U.P. (2000) 1
UPLBEC 729

3.Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs Addl. Commissioner
AIR 1995 Supreme Court 94

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Kuldeep Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Shri P.N. Rai,
learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This writ petition has been
preferred
mainly
with
the
following
prayers:

1. to issue a writ order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the order dated 20.2.2009 passed
by the Appellate Authority i.e, respondent
no.2 and the order dated 31.10.2007 passed
by
respondent
no.3
dismissing
the
petitioner from service.

2. to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondent not to give effect
the orders dated 20.2.2009 and 31.10.2007.

3. The case of the petitioner is that
during recruitment year 1993, he applied
for the post of constable in the Railway
Protection Force against the reserved
category of scheduled tripe candidate, after
due process as defined under the statutory
provisions and recruitment rules, the
petitioner was appointed as constable vide
order dated 20.8.1994, considering the
satisfactory services he has been promoted
for the post of head constable.

4. The petitioner is scheduled tribe
candidate belonging to village Sikar, State
of Rajasthan having valid scheduled tribe
certificate issued way back on 12.3.1991
since the ancestors of the petitioner had
been living in the said village for a long
time, for livelihood the father of the
petitioner settled at District Bulandshahar
but remained permanent resident of village
Gangvas, Neem Ka Khana, District Siker
State of Rajasthan, the caste of the
petitioner has been mentioned in Part-13 of
the schedule of the Constitution (S.T)
Order 1950 and Meena community has
been shown in S.T in Item No.9 of Part-13
of the said schedule.

5. In support of seeking reservation in
pursuance to the caste certificate as issued
to the petitioner the reliance has been
placed to the judgement passed by
Hon.Apex Court in the case of Union of
India vs. Doodh Nath Prasad AIR 2000 SC
525 and in the case of Sanjay Kumar Singh
vs. State of U.P. (2000) 1 UPLBEC 729
wherein it has been held that if a person
belongs to Scheduled Tribe of different
State, can still claim reservation under the
SC/ST quota if there is no prohibition in
that respect.

6. As per Article 342 of the
Constitution of India the President notified
the tribes of the State as S.T, it is quite
possible that in that State such trial on
account
of
dis-advantage
and
social
hardship suffered by that caste or group in
that State, is entitled for declaration that
they belonged to SC/ST but in another
4 All. Hari Ram Meena Vs. The General Manager & Ors.
1359
State such hardship or social dis-advantage
may not exist and as such State may not
treat such Caste or Tribe as SC/ST, it may
also be that such caste/ tribe is not residing
in another State, if a person belonging to
S.T of another State cease appointment on
the basis of the advertisement issued in
another State and as such advertisement
does not at all prevent a person of SC/ST of
another State, there is no bar that such
person may be permitted to appear in the
examination for selection to the post
advertised, meaning thereby that the
advertisement and the conditions thereof
are important.

7. In the present case when the
Railway Protection Force is an all India
organization, therefore, wherever the post
is advertised it has to have all India
notification and would apply to all the
citizens of India and in such circumstances
the bar of being a S.T of one State would
not be entitled to employment in another
state would not be an absolute bar.

8. Apart from the legal embargo of
taking
any
such
action
against
the
petitioner of belonging to a particular ST of
a particular State being not entitled to
obtain employment in another State under
that ST certificate, nevertheless the position
would not be same in case of all India
service, otherwise no quota can be applied
towards ST candidates as all ST are in
particular State where they are facing
exceptional
hardships,
therefore,
the
benevolence face of the Constitution is
towards the side that once a particular set
is held to be a ST mainly in that
particular State, but he would remain the
same for the reserved category in all
India service, particularly when there is
no such embargo specifically given in the
advertisement.

9. The action initiated against the
petitioner with regard to cross verification
of his status being the ST at the behest of
some general directions issued in a
litigation adjudicated by the Delhi High
Court, whereupon on the basis of the report
that the petitioner is not residing in his
original village at Rajasthan does not
confer the caste certificate pertaining to the
petitioner as doubtful.

10. Inspite of the same the department
issued a charge sheet dated 30.3.2007 duly
served on the petitioner in which the only
charge is a report of C.B.I. which has not
negated the certificate issued by Tehsildar,
Neem Ka Thana for major punishment
under Section 153(2) (a) of the Railway
Protection
Force
Regulations
1987.
Petitioner replied to the said charge sheet
on 22.10.2007 categorically stating that the
certificate dated 12.3.1991 was issued by
the Tehsildar after verifying due process of
law and which was even certified by the
incumbent Tehsildar vide his report dated
10.9.2007, at the same time it was also
stated that Tehsildar himself had also given
a report earlier on 26.10.2006 clearly
specifying that the certificate issued on
12.3.1991 is recorded in the register as such
the same cannot be faulted with from any
angle, moreover Tehsildar has subsequently
issued a duplicate copy of the certificate
dated 12.3.1991 on 21.12.2006 which also
proves that the certificate was issued and it
was not against any false document.

11. The entire episode has taken a
peculiar turn as inspite of the certificate
dated 12.3.1991 being found to be correct
is having entry in the register, still the S.T.
category is being sought to be denied only
on the basis of that he is not resident of that
place whereas it is an absolutely misnomer
and as such the S.T. certificate can be
1360 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
issued to wards whose ancestors also if
living in a particular village from where a
person of particular tribe was declared to be
ST, therefore, going by any stretch of
imagination the certificate issued in favour
of the petitioner having even found to be
valid and legitimately issued the benefit
cannot be deprived only on the basis that he
is not at present resident of that village and
this is absolutely fallacious proposition
which has given rise to the impugned order
taking away very source of livelihood of
the petitioner without there being any fault
on his part.

12. Without considering the grounds
taken up by the petitioner, the District
Authority held the charges to be proved
against
the
petitioner
on
absolutely
incorrect facts and illegal appreciation of
facts brought on record, however, the
disciplinary authority gave show cause
notice on 28.9.2007 as received by the
petitioner on 29.9.2007 alongwith the
Inquiry Report, and the same has been
replied by the petitioner on 22.10.2007.

13. Without considering the matter in
its right perspective, riding on its wings the
disciplinary authority passed an order of
dismissal
from
service
against
the
petitioner on 31.10.2007.

14. Being aggrieved by the order of
dismissal the petitioner preferred appeal
through proper channel before respondent
no.2 which was a composite appeal giving
out point wise details even assailing in the
enquiry made with a prayer to get order of
dismissal from service, the appellate
authority without any application of mind
has reiterated finding of the disciplinary
authority without considering the appeal on
valid grounds taken therein by way of
rejecting the same vide order dated
20.2.2009.

15. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondents vehemently opposed the prayer
alongwith the grounds taken for quashing
the impugned orders and relied upon the
stand taken up in the detailed counter
affidavit which has been preferred in
rebuttal of the contentions as raised in the
present petition.

16. The maintainability of the writ
petition was also challenged by the learned
counsel for the respondents on the ground
of alternative remedy, learned counsel for
the respondents raised his arguments by
way of narrating the provisions under Rule
219 of Railway Protection Force Rules
1987 wherein the remedy by the statutory
provision is available against the appellate
order.

17. The attention of the court has been
sought over the verification report issued
by the certificate issuing authority dated
26.10.2006 which has been appended as
Annexure-2, available at page -22 of the
counter affidavit which reveals that neither
the name of the petitioner has been
mentioned in any register nor he is the
permanent resident of the village as
mentioned in the caste certificate which
gives the impression that the caste
certificate submitted by the petitioner dated
21.12.2006 is not a genuine certificate.

18. After hearing the rival contentions
as raised by the learned counsel for the
parties the controversy as raised in the
present petition has to be testified on the
basis of the proposition of law as
enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil vs.
Additional Commissioner AIR 1995
4 All. Shivraj Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1361
Supreme
Court
94
wherein
it
is
specifically held that in case of verification
of caste certificate with regard to its
genuineness the District Level and State
level screening committee as already been
constituted by the Government of India, in
case if any establishment is having doubt
with
regard
to
the
caste
certificate
pertaining to SC/ST the same may be
referred
to
District
level
screening
committee which is the only competent
authority to comment upon the caste
certificate of SC/ST.

19. On the precise quarry as made
before
Shri
P.N.Rai
appearing
for
respondents regarding the regarding the
genesis of the disciplinary proceedings
whatsoever has been initiated against the
petitioner, in reply the learned counsel for
the respondent relied upon the narration in
the counter affidavit wherein it has also
apprised the court that the genuineness of
the said caste certificate shall only be
determined by the District Level Screening
Committee, but the counter affidavit as
preferred by the responding authorities
lacking any report determined by the
District Level Screening Committee over
the issue of caste certificate as submitted by
the petitioner at the time of seeking
appointment over the post concerned and as
such the appreciation of the law as well as
fact could not be stated properly by Shri
P.N. Rai, learned standing counsel.

20. There is hardly any reference of
any Inquiry Report or the determination
made by the District Level Screening
Committee over the issue of Caste
certificate of the petitioner as such the
entire proceedings as initiated in the shape
of
disciplinary
proceedings
which
culminated into the order dated 31.10.2007
through which the services of the petitioner
has been dismissed and the same has been
upheld at the level of appeal vide order
dated 20.2.2009.

21. In view of the above, writ petition
is allowed. Both the orders i.e, order dated
20.2.2009 passed by the appellate authority
i.e, respondent no.2 and the order dated
31.10.2007 passed by respondent no.3 are
hereby quashed and set aside.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 1361
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 283 of 2023

Shivraj Singh & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Kapil Misra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law-Application under Section
482 CrPC- entire proceedings of Sessions
Trial under Sections 120B, 121, 121A, 420,
467, 468 IPC- Sections 13, 18, 20, 21,
23(2), 38, 39 and 40 the Unlawful
Activities
(Prevention)
Act,
1967-
challenged-validity
pf
sanction
for
prosecution challenged- de hors Section
45(2) of the Act of 1967-supplemntary
case diary submitted after a gap of about
12 years-sanction also given.

B. Difference between a invalid sanction
for
prosecution-and
absence
of
prosecution-sanction for prosecution was
given
way
back
in
2010-
grant
of
sanction-administrative
sanction-
sanctioning authority required to ensure -