# Singhasan Gupta v. State of U.P. and

- **Citation:** (2010) 3 ILRA 1154
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-08-25
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26836 of 2004
- **Bench:** A.P.Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/singhasan-gupta-v-state-of-u-p-and-41735
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India Article 342-Caste of
Kol-whether
included
in
schedules
tribes?-held-'No' unless-promulgated by
President of India-even in constitution
scheduled tribes U.P. order 1967-not
included the caste of Kol as scheduled
tribes can not be treated as S.T.

Held: Para 5

Without entering into the other merits of
the procedure for dispensing with the
services of the petitioner it would be
appropriate
to
mention
that
the
Constitution
Scheduled
Tribes
Order
1950 promulgated by the President of
India under Article 342 does not contain
the caste of the petitioner namely 'Kol'
as a scheduled tribe. The Constitution
Scheduled Tribe Uttar Pradesh Order
1967 published on 24th June, 1967
includes only five castes as scheduled
tribes namely (1) Bhotia (2) Buksa (3)
Jannsari (4) Raji and (5) Tharu. The
3 All] Dinesh Kumar V. The Dy. Inspector General of Police and another
1155
caste of Kol is not included in the said
order. The power to include a caste as a
scheduled tribe or a scheduled caste is
vested
under
Article
342
of
the
Constitution in the President of India
and
any
notification
by
the
State
Government to the contrary is of no
relevance.

## Text

1154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
definition and used to restrict the meaning
of expression defined in the definition
clause and whenever such word or
expression is used in the body of the
statute, it shall be restricted to meaning
assigned in the definition clause and
popular or natural meaning of such word
or expression shall not be applied.

27. After observing so, this Court has
held that adopted son is as good as real
son. In this view of the matter, I am of the
definite opinion that the adopted son has
got the same status under law as the natural
son has and there can be no difference in
between the two (adopted or natural) either
for mythological purpose or for secular
purpose to perpetuate the line of family.
The view taken by me also finds support
from several decisions of this Court
rendered in Sunil Saxena Vs. State of U.P.
and
others,
1994
(68)
FLR
283;
Singhasan Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and
another, (1996) 1 UPLBEC 4 and
Ravindra Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P.
and others, 2005 (4) ESC 2706 (All).
Thus, the impugned notice/order dated
17.4.2010 sent/passed by respondent no. 3
is unsustainable in the eye of law and
deserves to be quashed.

28. In the result, the writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
reply/order dated 17.4.2010 passed by
respondent no. 3 (Regional Director Social
Forestry, Region Bareilly) is hereby
quashed.

29. Keeping the purpose and object
of the Rules of 1974 i.e. to save out the
family from financial crunch after the
death of an employee, the concerned
respondent is directed to reconsider the
petitioner's
matter
in
view
of
the
observation made hereinabove within a
period of six weeks from the date a
certified copy of this order is produced
before him, by passing a reasoned
speaking order.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.08.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.P.SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26836 of 2004

Dinesh Kumar

 ...Petitioner
Versus
The Dy. Inspector General of Police and
another

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri K.C.Sinha

Constitution of India Article 342-Caste of
Kol-whether
included
in
schedules
tribes?-held-'No' unless-promulgated by
President of India-even in constitution
scheduled tribes U.P. order 1967-not
included the caste of Kol as scheduled
tribes can not be treated as S.T.

Held: Para 5

Without entering into the other merits of
the procedure for dispensing with the
services of the petitioner it would be
appropriate
to
mention
that
the
Constitution
Scheduled
Tribes
Order
1950 promulgated by the President of
India under Article 342 does not contain
the caste of the petitioner namely 'Kol'
as a scheduled tribe. The Constitution
Scheduled Tribe Uttar Pradesh Order
1967 published on 24th June, 1967
includes only five castes as scheduled
tribes namely (1) Bhotia (2) Buksa (3)
Jannsari (4) Raji and (5) Tharu. The
3 All] Dinesh Kumar V. The Dy. Inspector General of Police and another
1155
caste of Kol is not included in the said
order. The power to include a caste as a
scheduled tribe or a scheduled caste is
vested
under
Article
342
of
the
Constitution in the President of India
and
any
notification
by
the
State
Government to the contrary is of no
relevance.

(Delivered by Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J.)

1. The petitioner applied for being
appointed as a constable in the Central
Reserve Police Force on the basis of a
caste certificate dated 30th June 1995
issued by the Tehsildar Karchhana
District Allahabad indicating that the
petitioner is a scheduled tribe. The caste
of the petitioner is mentioned as "Kol".

2. In the year 2003 the department
instituted
a
departmental
enquiry
against the petitioner on the ground that
the petitioner had obtained appointment
on the basis of a wrong caste certificate
and ultimately he was removed vide
order dated 12th April, 2004. The
petitioner has come up assailing the said
order and during the pendency of the
writ petition the petitioner had preferred
an appeal which has also been dismissed
as such the consequential relief has also
been claimed.

3. A counter affidavit has been
filed on behalf of the respondents
wherein it has been stated that the
petitioner
had
deliberately
and
intentionally got employment on the
strength of a certificate even though the
caste of the petitioner is not included
within the scheduled tribe order.

4. I have perused the impugned
order as well as the facts stated in the
counter
affidavit
and
the
reply
submitted by the petitioner.

5. Without entering into the other
merits of the procedure for dispensing
with the services of the petitioner it
would be appropriate to mention that the
Constitution Scheduled Tribes Order
1950 promulgated by the President of
India under Article 342 does not contain
the caste of the petitioner namely 'Kol'
as a scheduled tribe. The Constitution
Scheduled Tribe Uttar Pradesh Order
1967 published on 24th June, 1967
includes only five castes as scheduled
tribes namely (1) Bhotia (2) Buksa (3)
Jannsari (4) Raji and (5) Tharu. The
caste of Kol is not included in the said
order. The power to include a caste as a
scheduled tribe or a scheduled caste is
vested
under
Article
342
of
the
Constitution in the President of India
and any notification by the State
Government to the contrary is of no
relevance.

6. Learned counsel for the
petitioner
contends
that
the
State
Government had issued a Government
Order in this regard. The aforesaid
reliance placed is without any basis
inasmuch as the said declaration has to
be made under a presidential order.

7. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has been unable to furnish
any such document which may indicate
that there is a presidential order
including the caste of Kol as a
scheduled tribe. In view of this the
issuance of the certificate or even
otherwise does not come to the aid of
the petitioner once it is established that
the caste of the petitioner does not fall
within the scheduled tribe category as
1156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
per Article 342 of the Constitution of
India. Accordingly, the writ petition
lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATE: ALLAHABAD 22.09.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30643 of 2007

Rajendra Singh

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Diptiman Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wagers
Appointment on Group-D post Rules
2001-Rule 4 (1) (a)-Regularisation of
Daily wagers working on Group-D postsince
1990-forest
Department-not
disputed
their
functioningRegularisation
can
not
be
denieddirection for fresh consideration issued.

Held: Para 9 and 10

In the opinion of the Court the aforesaid
stand taken in the counter affidavit is
untenable in law inasmuch as if the
petitioner was factually working in the
year 1991 particularly on the cut off date
i.e. 29th June 1991 then he falls for
consideration
for
the
benefit
of
regularization and payment of minimum
wages as a Group-D employee keeping in
view the 2001 Rules as well as the
decisions rendered by this Court and by
the Apex Court.

Coming to the relevancy part as stated in
Paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit
suffice it to say that such a daily wager
has to be continued in service on the
date of the commencement of the rules.
The rules have commenced on 21st
December, 2001. There is no denial that
the petitioner was working on 21st
December 2001 and has been paid his
wages. In view of this the impugned
order dated 15th March 2005 and 8th
March 2005 Annexure 6 to the writ
petition is unsustainable and it is hereby
quashed. The matter is remitted back to
the respondent no. 3 for reconsideration
of the claim of the petitioner in the light
of the observations made herein above
within a period of three months of the
date of presentation of a certified copy
of this order before him.

(Delivered by Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J.)

1.

The
petitioner
has
been
discontinued as a daily wager in the
Forest Department and simultaneously
an order has been passed on 15th March
2005
refusing
the
benefit
of
regularization to the petitioner on the
ground that the petitioner's claim does
not fall within the provisions of The
Uttar Pradesh Reguarisation of Daily
Wages Appointments on Group D Posts
Rules 2001.

2. Learned counsel for the
petitioner contends that the impugned
order proceeds on erroneous assumption
of facts and law inasmuch as the
petitioner was working as a daily wager
since 1990 prior to the cut off date of
29th June 1991 and was also working on
the date of the 2001 Rules which were
enforced on 21st December 2001. He
submits that in view of the provisions of
the aforesaid rules particularly Rule
4(1)(a), the petitioner is entitled for
regularization and the facts in support of
such a claim have been completely
ignored as such the impugned order is
vitiated.