# Jauwad Ali v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2001) 1 ILRA 161
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000-08-07
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jauwad-ali-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-39586
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

1All] Jauwad Ali V. State of U.P. and another 161
 little or no circulation cannot be of
any avail to the petitioner.

15. We are fully in agreement with
the said Division Bench Decision.

16. In our opinion advertisement in
an unknown newspaper stands on the
same footing as no advertisement at all
the purpose of the advertisement is that
there should be wide publicity otherwise
Article 14 of the Constitution will be
violated.

In the circumstances the petition is
allowed. The impugned auction as well as
the contract in pursuance there of are
quashed. However, we are not going into
the other points raised in this petition, as
that is not necessary for the purpose of
this case. The petition is allowed. No
orders as to costs.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 6. 6(1 &-
7+( +21·%/( 6. 6(1 &-
7+( +21·%/( 68'+,5 1$5$,1 -
7+( +21·%/( 68'+,5 1$5$,1 -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

-DXZDG $OL
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 DQG DQRWKHU «5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6\HG :DMLG $OL
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&

&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD $UWLFOH 1DWXUDO
-XVWLFH &DVWH &HUWLILFDWH JUDQWHG DIWHU
WKH
$PHQGPHQW&DQFHOODWLRQ
RI
LQ
YLRODWLRQ RI SULQFLSOHV RI QDWXUDO MXVWLFH
LOOHJDO
+HOG3DUD
)ROORZLQJ WKLV VHWWOHG SULQFLSOH WKDW VLQFH
E\ LVVXDQFH RI &DVWH &HUWLILFDWH FHUWDLQ
ULJKWV KDYH DFFUXHG WR WKH SHWLWLRQHU
ZKLFK FDQQRW EH WDNHQ DZD\ ZLWKRXW
JLYLQJ KLP DQ\ RSSRUWXQLW\ RI KHDULQJ
DQG
ZKLFK
YLRODWHV
WKH
SULQFLSOHV
RI
QDWXUDO MXVWLFH ZH DUH RI WKH YLHZ WKDW LW
ZDV
QRW
SURSHU
RQ
WKH
SDUW
RI
WKH
DXWKRULWLHV
WR
FDQFHO
WKH
&DVWH
&HUWLILFDWH
ZLWKRXW
LVVXLQJ
DQ\
VKRZ
FDXVH QRWLFH DQG ZLWKRXW JLYLQJ KLP DQ\
RSSRUWXQLW\ RI KHDULQJ DQG WKH VDLG RUGHU
RI
WKH
FDQFHOODWLRQ
RI
WKH
&DVWH
&HUWLILFDWH VXIIHUV IURP YLRODWLRQ RI WKH
SULQFLSOHV RI QDWXUDO MXVWLFH
&DVH ODZ GLVFXVVHG
$LU 6&

By the Court

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. The petitioner has challenged the
impugned order dated 7th August, 2000,
whereby the Caste Certificate granted to
the writ petitioner on 21st June, 2000 by
the Tehsildar, Tehsil Sahjanwan, District
Gorakhpur (respondent no. 2) has been
cancelled. By means of the present writ
petition the petitioner has challenged the
legality and validity of the impugned
order dated 7th August,2000 cancelling the
Caste Certificate issued to the petitioner
on 21st June, 2000.

3. It is the contention of the
petitioner that the petitioner belongs to the
'Sheikh' caste and the said caste was
recognized
as
Backward
Caste
by
respondent no. 1 the State of Uttar
Pradesh.
The
petitioner
applied
for
issuance of the Caste Certificate before
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
162
respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 after
having made necessary enquiry issued the
Caste
Certificate
in
favour of the
petitioner on 21st June,2000. By the
impugned order dated 7th August, 2000
respondent no. 2 has cancelled the Caste
Certificate issued to the petitioner on 21st
June,.2000 on the ground that on account
of the amendment made by the Backward
Caste Kalyan Anubhag-1, State of U.P., in
Notification
No.
315/64-1-98-70/96
Lucknow dated 31st May, 1998, the
'Sheikh' caste has been amended as
'Sheikh Sarvari (Pirayee)' and, therefore,
the Caste Certificate issued for 'Sheikh'
caste is not in accordance with law. The
contention of the learned Advocate for the
petitioner is that on the basis of the Caste
Certificate that he was a 'sheikh' by caste,
certain facilities and rights accrued to the
petitioner which he will be deprived of
under the impugned order. The impugned
order will affect him adversely and as
such it is bounden duty on the part of the
concerned authority to take action after
affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner. The impugned order violates
the principles of natural justice and
appears to be absolutely arbitrary being
issued after amendment. It is not in
dispute that no opportunity of hearing was
afforded to the petitioner before the Caste
Certificate was cancelled.

4. The contention of the learned
Standing Counsel, however, is that under
the original notification issued in 1997
'Sheikh' caste was treated as a Backward
Caste. However, after amendment in that
notification instead of 'Sheikh' caste,
'Sheikh Sarvari (Pirayee)' has been
recognized as Backward Caste.

5. It is significant, therefore, that
when the petitioner was granted Caste
Certificate on 21st June, 2000, the
amendment had already come into force
and the petitioner was granted the Caste
Certificate after such amendment. There
is no reason for the authorities to take it
back now on the basis of the amendment
itself without giving opportunity to the
petitioner. In any event, even if the Caste
Certificate was wrongly issued, it was
incumbent duty on the part of the
authorities to provide an opportunity of
hearing and to issue a show cause notice
to the petitioner before canceling the
Caste Certificate issued earlier to him.
Before canceling the Caste Certificate the
petitioner has been denied any such
opportunity. It is well settled principle
that when an order is passed by any
authority bearing penal consequences, it is
proper that an opportunity of hearing
should be given. In the instant case the
same has not been done. Shri S.W. Ali,
learned Advocate for the petitioner, has
relied upon the judgment and decision
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Gulzar Singh Vs SubDivisional Magistrate & another, reported
in A.I.R. 1999S.C. 3803. In the aforesaid
decision a certificate was issued to the
appellant to the effect that the appellant
belonged to 'Majhbi Sikh' Caste which
was recognized as Scheduled Caste. On
enquiry conducted it was found that the
appellant
belonged
to
Christian
community.
The
Scheduled
Caste
certificate of the appellant was cancelled
without issuing any show cause notice to
the appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that the said order of
cancellation violated the principles of
natural justice.

6. We are of the view that the
argument
advanced
by
the
learned
Advocate for the petitioner cannot be said
1All] Jauwad Ali V. State of U.P. and another 163
to be without any substance. We feel it
appropriate in the circumstances to
reproduce the relevant portion of the
aforesaid
judgment
of
the
Hon'ble
Supreme Court which is set out herein
below:

" The appellant had been issued a
caste certificate on 10th October, 1988 in
which it was inter alia stated that the
appellant belongs to Majhbi Sikh Caste
which was recognized as Scheduled
Caste. The grievance of the appellant was
restricted to the decision communicated to
him by the sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Gurdaspur dated 3rd June. 1997 whereby
the Certificate No. 9336 dated 10-10-1988
was cancelled. The said certificate was
cancelled because of an enquiry, which
was stated to have been conducted. It was
found that the appellant belongs to the
Christian community. The cancellation of
the Scheduled Caste certificate was
challenged by the appellant by filing a
writ petition in the High Court. The High
Court dismissed the same by observing as
follows:

"From the pleading of the parties it is
crystal clear that an open enquiry was
made with regard to the Scheduled Caste
certificate issued to the petitioner and in
the said enquiry petitioner was associated.
On proper appraisal of all aspects of the
case, it has been held that the petitioner is
not Scheduled Caste but a Christian. That
being so, we find nothing wrong in the
order
vide
which
Scheduled
Caste
certificate issued to the petitioner has
been cancelled."

It is clear from the facts on record
that prior to the cancellation of the
Scheduled
Caste
certificate
by
the
impugned order dated 3rd June,1997 no
show cause notice was issued to the
appellant. It cannot be denied that with
the
issuance
of
Scheduled
Caste
certificate certain rights accrued to the
appellant. If this certificate was to be
cancelled on the basis of some enquiry
which
had
been conducted by the
department it was incumbent on the
department,
keeping
in
view
the
principles of natural justice, to issue a
show cause notice to the appellant
requiring him to explain as to why the
Scheduled Caste certificate which had
been issued should not be cancelled. If
there were statements of other persons
which were recorded, as seem to have
been done in the present case, on the basis
of which the department came to the
conclusion that the appellant was not
Majhbi Sikh by caste but was Christian.
Then fairness would require that the said
statements should be put to the appellant
before a final decision is taken.

In view of the fact that principles of
natural justice were violated in the present
case we allow this appeal, set aside the
judgment of the High Court and quash the
impugned order passed on 3rd June. 1997
leaving it open to the respondent to take
action in accordance with law. There will
be no order as to costs."

7. Following this settled principle
that since by issuance of Caste Certificate
certain rights have accrued to the
petitioner which cannot be taken away
without giving him any opportunity of
hearing and which violates the principles
of natural justice, we are of the view that
it was not proper on the part of the
authorities to cancel the Caste Certificate
without issuing any show cause notice
and without giving him any opportunity
of hearing and the said order of the
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
164
cancellation of the Caste Certificate
suffers from violation of the principles of
natural justice.

8. The impugned order dated 7th
August,
2000
cancelling
the
Caste
Certificate accordingly stands quashed
and set aside. This will, however, not
restrain the respondent authorities to take
appropriate action in accordance with law.
The petition accordingly succeeds and the
writ petition is allowed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$' 2&72%(5
'$7(' $//$+$%$' 2&72%(5
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 65 6,1*+ -
7+( +21·%/( 65 6,1*+ -
7+( +21·%/( '5 &+$8'+$5< -
7+( +21·%/( '5 &+$8'+$5< -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ QR

'U 3RRQDP .KDUH
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 8WWDU 3UDGHVK RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU:
6KUL $GLW\D .XPDU 6LQJK
6KUL $VKRN .KDUH
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
6KUL +5 0LVUD

83 6HUYLFH 5HVHUYDWLRQ IRU 6F67 DQG
RWKHU %DFNZDUG &ODVVHV 6HFWLRQ

5HVHUYDWLRQVLQJOH
3RVW
&DGUH
5HVHUYDWLRQ QRW DSSOLFDEOH
+HOG 3DUD
:KLOH DSSUHFLDWLQJ WKH UDWLR ODLG GRZQ LQ
WKH DERYH FDVHV WKH TXHVWLRQ UDLVHG IRU
FRQVLGHUDWLRQ
EHIRUH
WKH
$SH[
&RXUW
PXVW EH ERUQH LQ PLQG 1RWKLQJ LQ WKHVH
GHFLVLRQV SUHFOXGHV OLQNLQJ RI SRVWV LQ
WKH
VDPH
JUDGHFDGUH
WKRXJK
LQ
GLIIHUHQW VXEMHFWV IRU WKH SXUSRVH RI
ZRUNLQJ
RXW
WKH
TXRWD
IRU
UHVHUYHG
FDWHJRU\ FDQGLGDWHV ,W PXVW DOVR EH
ERUQH LQ PLQG WKDW VHOHFWLRQ LV PDGH LQ
UHVSHFW RI YDFDQFLHV DW WKH 6WDWH OHYHO
6XEVHFWLRQ RI 6HFWLRQ RI 83
+LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ 6HUYLFHV FRPPLVVLRQ
$FW SURYLGHV IRU QRWLILFDWLRQ WR WKH
&RPPLVVLRQ ́ D VXEMHFW ZLVH FRQVROLGDWHG
OLVW RI YDFDQFLHV IURP DOO FROOHJHV ́ 7KLV
DOVR VXJJHVWV LQWHJUDWLRQ RI YDFDQFLHV LQ
D
JUDGHFDGUH
IRU
WKH
SXUSRVH
RI
ZRUNLQJ RXW WKH QXPEHU RI UHVHUYHG
SRVWV
&DVH ODZ GLVFXVVHG
$,5 6& ±
 6HF
-7 6&
$,5 6HF

By the Court
1. Advertisement No. 29 of 2000
issued by the U.P. Higher Secondary
Education
Service
Commission,
Allahabad in so far as it pertains to the
post of Lecturer in Geology in P.P.N.
College, Kanpur is sought to be quashed
by means of this petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. The
petitioner who is working in the college
as an Anshkalik teacher appointed as such
by the management with the approval of
the Director, Higher Education Service
Commission in view of the provisions
contained in Government Order No. 467
(1)
Sattar-2-98-3(9)/93
T.C.
dated
7.4.1998, claims that she is eligible and
fully qualified for being appointed as
Lecturer Geology but stands precluded
from applying to the post in question
because of the reason that it has been
illegally reserved for scheduled caste
candidate.

2. It has been submitted by Sri
Ashok Khare, Advocate appearing for the
petitioner that the sole vacancy in the post