PRABHAT KUMAR SHARMA Vs. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
LAWS(SC)-2006-10-97
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PATNA)
Decided on October 19,2006

PRABHAT KUMAR SHARMA Appellant
VERSUS
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

VINAY PRAKASH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

NANDA YADAVRAO SHANKHPALE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-4-43] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP AGNIHOTRI VS. STATE OF M. P. [LAWS(MPH)-2012-10-177] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. SHIV KUMAR BHARDWAJ [LAWS(ALL)-2010-2-140] [REFERRED TO]
SHAILENDRA KUMAR BUNDELA VS. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2014-8-167] [REFERRED TO]
SHAHJAHAN BAIGAM VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE UDHAM SINGH NAGAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(UTN)-2017-9-74] [REFERRED TO]
MOTI VISHWAKARMA VS. THE UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-2018-7-330] [REFERRED TO]
RAJARAM SAKHWAR VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2019-8-129] [REFERRED TO]
PANKAJ KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2021-1-14] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR RAI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-2022-2-128] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This judgment shall dispose of Civil Appeal No. 5483 of 2000 and Writ Petition Nos. 173 of 2002 and 488 of 2000 filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Point involved in all these cases being the same, they are disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.)The facts are taken from Civil Appeal No. 5483 of 2000. This appeal has been filed by a member of "Lohar" community from the State of Bihar. "Lohars" are being treated as Other Backward Classes whereas he claims to be a member of Scheduled Tribes under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order. The point in issues is concluded against the appellant by a judgment of this Court in Nityanand Sharma and Another Vs. State of Bihar and Others, 1996 (3) SCC 576. The appellant seeks to get the judgment in the case of Nityanand (supra) referred to a larger Bench by contending that the said judgment is wrong and needs reconsideration.
(3.)Prabhat Kumar Sharma, the appellant herein, was a candidate for the Civil Services Examinations held during the years 1991, 1992, 1993 & 1994. He claimed to belong to "Lohar" community, which according to him was a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Bihar. While considering the candidature of the appellant and while verifying his claim as belonging to Scheduled Tribe in the State of Bihar, the Union Public Service Commission prime facie came to the conclusion that the "Lohar" community was not included in the list of Scheduled Tribes for the State of Bihar issued by the Government of India. The Commission addressed a communication to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi to ascertain if "Lohar" community was recognized as a Scheduled Tribe in Bihar. The Deputy Commissioner in his reply indicated that "Lohar" community in the Bihar was recognized as "Backward Class" only and not as 'Schedule Tribe". In the light of this, the appellant was asked by the Commission to clarify the latest position in respect of the community claim.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.