SATYA PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
PRABODH SATYA PRAKASH
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Brief Holder for the State on the aforementioned urgency application and interim relief applications, it transpires that all the three petitioners challenged the denial of the education authorities for sending them for training of Special B.T.C. course, for which the petitioners claimed themselves to be entitled on the basis of reservation meant for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste category. On the basis of the claim of the petitioners that they belong to sub-caste Bhuivar falling under the Scheduled Caste community, their respective Caste Certificates were issued by the Tehsildar, Kashipur way back between the years 1994 to 1996. They challenged the aforesaid order of the education authorities before this Court by filing the Writ Petition (M/S) No. 530/2008, Balram Singh v. State. It is pertinent to mention that Balram Singh (petitioner in WPMS No. 530/2008) is the sufferer in the same way as are the present petitioners.
(2.) IT has been apprised that sub-caste Bhuivar still figures in the Scheduled Caste category. But on a complaint that the petitioners somehow managed to procure their caste certificates fraudulently, petitioners and many other persons were debarred, en bloc, from claiming the benefit of the said caste certificates. Thereafter, in a petition before this Court, interim relief was granted to the petitioners and the competent authority was directed to consider the petitioners in counseling and subsequently to send them for the training. The directions of this Court were complied with. Petitioners successfully completed their training. Their mark sheets were issued again on the intervention of this Court. Now, they are not being offered any appointment.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the concerned authority is neither offering appointment to the petitioners nor taking any decision on their representations made for the purpose.
It can significantly be noted here that the matter in controversy can be settled once and for all only after the adjudication of the aforementioned Writ Petition (M/S) No. 530/2008, wherein it has to be decided as to whether the petitioners have fraudulently obtained their caste certificates or not. Having said that, it is also incumbent upon the concerned District Education Officer to consider the representations of the petitioners, made for issuance of offer of appointment. That being the position, it is hereby directed that the concerned District Education Officer shall consider and decide the said representations, in accordance with law, by a speaking and reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of supply of certified copy of this order by the petitioners. Needless to say that while doing so, the said Officer will be at his free will and shall logically consider the case of the each petitioners and thereafter, he may, either issue the offer of appointment or deny the same as per the merits of the case of the petitioners.
(3.) IN case the appointment is denied to the petitioners, they will be at liberty to approach this Court by moving an urgency application for adjudication of the Writ Petition (M/S) No. 530/2008 so that the controversy can resolved finally.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, all the aforementioned interim relief applications and the urgency application are disposed of.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.