- (1.) WE have heard Sri Ajay Bhanot, Sri Mohit Singh, Sri Padmesh Jain for the appellant. Learned Standing Counsel appears for State respondents. Sri Sdiddharath Khare appears for respondent No. 5 - Sri Jai Karan Patel.
(2.) THE facts in brief given in the judgement of the learned Single Judge are as follows: "Brief background of the case is that the Superintending Engineer Etawah Circle P.W.D. Etawah issued advertisement being advertisement No.1/Backlog/2007 on 2.8.2007 in daily hindi news paper 'Dainik Jagaran', inviting applications from the citizens of India for filling up ten posts of Junior Clerk/Typists, and one Post of Stenographer. The post of Stenographer, as advertised by the aforesaid advertisement, was a post reserved for other backward class. Sanjeev Yadav, who is Yadav by caste and as this caste is included in other backward class, in both the states i.e. Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh applied for consideration of his candidature, based on caste certificate issued from competent authority from State of Madhya Pradesh. Sanjeev Yadav was issued admit card, he took up the examination, and on 16.10.2007 cleared the said examination and thereafter was called for interview and he faced interview and was ultimately issued appointment letter on 8.11.2007, and joined on 17.11.2007 and thereafter, complaint was made by Jai Karan Patel and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 69894 of 2009 had been filed mentioning therein that the post in question was reserved for OBC from the State of Uttar Pradesh and as such selection is bad. After the said writ petition has been filed, Superintending Engineer, Etawah Circle P.W.D. Etawah proceeded to pass order on 26.2.2010 cancelling the appointment of Sanjeev Yadav. Sanjeev Yadav at this juncture filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15653 of 2010 and both the writ petitions have been clubbed together and taken up together."
(3.) LEARNED Single Judge has relied on a Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Action Committee on issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and another Vs. Union of India and another, 1994 5 SCC 244, in which the Supreme Court has considered the opinion expressed in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao Vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College, 1990 3 SCC 130, and has held that even if the appellant belongs to same Caste, which is also notified in the State of U.P., since he was not a domicile of the State of U.P, and that the Caste Certificate was issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh, he was not entitled to the benefit of reservation for Other Backward Class in the State of U.P. Learned Single Judge has also relied on a judgment of the Court in Praveen Kumar Saraf Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2005 6 AWC 5969, in which it was held in para Nos. 13 and 14 as follows: - "13. In M.C.D. Vs. Veena and Ors., 2001 6 SCC 571, the Apex Court while considering a similar case in respect of OBCs, held as under: - "Castes or groups are specified in relation to a given State or Union Territory, which obviously means that such caste would include caste belonging to an OBC group in relation to that State or Union Territory for which it is specified. The matters that are to be taken into consideration for specifying a particular caste in a particular group belonging to OBCs would depend on the nature and extent of disadvantages and social hardships suffered by that caste or group in that State. However, it may not be so in another State to which a person belonging thereto goes by migration. It may also be that a caste belonging to the same nomenclature is specified in two States but the considerations on the basis of which they had been specified may be totally different. So the degree of disadvantages of various elements which constitute the date for specification may also be entirely different. Thus, merely because a given caste is specified in one State as belonging to OBCs does not necessarily mean that if there be another group belonging to the same nomenclature in another State, a person belonging to that group is entitled to the rights, privileges and benefits admissible to the members of that caste. These aspects have to be borne in mind in interpreting the provisions of the Constitution with reference to application of reservation to OBCs". 14. The law, as settled by the Apex Court, therefore leads us to the conclusion that the petitioner, who is admittedly a domicile of another State, cannot get the benefit of reservation under U.P. Act No. 4 of 1994, unless there is a specific provision notifying the same in the State of U.P. No notification has been brought to our notice providing the benefit of the Act of 1994 for domiciles or candidates outside the State of U.P.";