Buddhi Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Others

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.@mdashThe present petition is filed by a Member of the KOL community, who has prayed for quashing of the order dated 26.10.2009 whereby his request for admission in Special B.T.C., 2008 as a candidate has been rejected.

2. The claim of the petitioner is that he belongs to a Scheduled Tribe category and, therefore, he deserves the said benefit. The said claim has been rejected on the ground that the Caste of KOL is not within the Scheduled Tribe category and, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim such benefit. The petitioner has further challenged the Notification dated 4.7.2007, whereby the earlier Notification dated 10.10.2005 was rescinded and the benefit of placement of the KOL community as a Scheduled Tribe had been withdrawn by the State Government.

3. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the KOL community is treated to be a Scheduled Tribe in various other States and since they are culturally a Scheduled Tribe and not a Scheduled Caste, therefore, they are entitled to the said benefit. The petitioner has cited examples of Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Bihar and Orissa, to contend that such benefits have been extended to the KOL community as a Scheduled Tribe. It has been further contended that the withdrawal of the benefit is absolutely unjustified and unconstitutional.

4. Learned standing counsel contends that in the absence of a presidential order, the petitioner cannot claim any such benefit.

5. The aforesaid issue is no longer res-integra inasmuch as for the purpose of declaration as a Scheduled Tribe, the President has to issue a declaration under Article 342 of the Constitution of India. In the absence of any such declaration, such a claim cannot be accepted. Reference may be had to the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of S. Pushpa and Others Vs. Sivachanmugavelu and Others,

Accordingly, the issue raised has no merit and deserves to be dismissed.

6. Apart from this, it is also settled that reservation extended in one State may not apply in other State. For this, reference may be had to the cases in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao Vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College and Others, Union of India and Others Vs. Dudh Nath Prasad, and M.C.D. Vs. Veena and Others,

The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.