HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 24188 of 1999 Court No. - 34 (Sl. No. 19) HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Dilip Kesarwani, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- "(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to join the petitioners in the requisite training of PAC on the basis of the selection as made by the respondent themselves and after completion of the same training to appoint the petitioner as Constable PAC in State of U.P. with all consequential service benefit. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling upon the respondent to produce the copy of the order by which petitioners' recruitment for the post of Constable of PAC have been cancelled and perusal thereof to quash the same." 3. Vide order dated 25.11.1999, the instant writ petition was directed to be listed alongwith Writ Petition No. 28277 of 1999 (Mangal Singh Vs., Sena Nayak 38th Vahini, P.A.C. Aligarh and others). In the said connected petition, interim order was passed on 16.7.1999, whereby the said petitioner was permitted to continue their training subject to the final decision in the said writ petition. On the strength of the order dated 25.11.1999, it is submitted by the petitioners that the petitioners were also permitted to continue the training and thereafter was given appointment as Constable in PAC and since then he was working as Constable in PAC during the pendency of the instant petition. 4. The instant petition was filed on 1.2.2018. Pursuant thereto, it is submitted by the petitioners that the petitioners were discharged from service. Later on, he filed a restoration application alongwith the delay condonation application which was Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Atipriya Gautam, Jarnardan Pd. Pandey, Sunita Sharma, Vinod Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : S.C. Balbir Singh And Another .....Petitioner(s) Sena Nayak 38 Vahini P.A.C. And Others .....Respondent(s) allowed vide order dated 14.12.2020. Pursuant thereto, it is submitted by the petitioners that they were again reinstated and is continuing in service. 5. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioners, herein, had applied for the post of Constable in PAC pursuant to the advertisement dated 15.7.1998 as candidates of Scheduled Tribe on the basis of the caste certificate issued in their favour in the State of Rajasthan on 26.12.1996, wherein it was held that the petitioners belong to the Meena community, which is a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Rajasthan but the same is not notified as Scheduled Tribe in the State of U.P. Being aggrieved, the instant petition was filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus from the respondents to send them for training and give them appointment with all consequential benefits. Thus, the sole issue involved in the instant case is that whether the person who belongs to the Meena caste, which is Scheduled Tribe in the State of U.P. 6. The issue in this regard is well settled by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Bir Singh Vs. Delhi Jal Board and others AIR 2018 SC 4077, wherein the Apex Court has held as under:- ".... the benefits of reservation provided for by the Constitution would stand confined to the geographical territories of a State/Union Territory in respect of which the lists of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes have been notified by the Presidential Orders issued from time to time. A person notified as a Scheduled Caste in State 'A' cannot claim the same status in another State on the basis that he is declared as a Scheduled Caste in State 'A'." 7. Similar issue was also dealt with by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ- A No. 34540 of 2003 (Ved Prakash Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others), wherein the Coordinate Bench, relying upon the aforesaid judgment of Bir Singh (supra) held that the petitioner being resident of State of Uttranchal could not have been given benefit of reservation in the State of U.P. 8. Relying upon the aforesaid two judgments, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No. 27296 of 1999 (Jagveer Vs. State of U.P. and others), which was decided on 17.5.2019 has dismissed the writ petition where the identical controversy was involved that a candidate of Meena community which was a Scheduled Caste community notified in the State of Rajasthan and is not notified as Scheduled Tribe in the State of U.P. 9. Likewise, another petition being Writ-A No. 38766 of 1998 (Vishan Pal and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) was also dismissed on the same ground vide order dated 30.11.2017. Against the order dated 30.11.2017, Special Appeal was also filed being Special Appeal No. 711 of 2017 which has also been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment and order dated 11.3.2024, WRIA No. 24188 of 1999 2 relying upon another judmgent of this Court in Sunil Kumar Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India which took note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Dudh Nath Prasad; AIR 2000 Supreme Court 525 as well as the judgment in Sanjay Kumar Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another; 2000 (3) AWC 2239. In para 9 of the judgment the Division Bench in Sunil Kumar, held as under:- "The President under Article 342 of the Constitution notifies the Tribes of a State as Scheduled Tribe. It may be that in that State such Tribes on account of disadvantage and social hardship suffered by that caste or group in that State is entitled for declaration that they belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe but in another State such hardship or social disadvantage may not exist and such State may not treat such caste or tribe as Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. It may also be that such caste or tribe is not residing in another Stat but if a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe of another State seeks employment on the basis of an advertisement issued in another State and such advertisement does not at all present a person belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe of another State, there is no bar that such person may be permitted to appear in the examination for selection to the post advertised." 10. Taking note of the aforesaid decision, the Division Bench in Vishan Pal (Supra) observed as under:- 6. The Division Bench has clearly noted that by virtue of Article 342 of the Constitution of India a particular Tribe will have to be notified as a Scheduled Tribes for a particular State. Though, passing observation has been made that such a person belonging to Scheduled Tribes status may also claim appointment in another State, but that observation will not be of any help to the appellants in the facts of the present case. The Division Bench was apparently dealing with the case relating to employment of the Life Insurance Corporation, which is an All India Service in the facts of that case. The employment claimed by the appellants in this case is in the Provincial Armed Constabulary, which is a State employment. The judgment of the Division Bench, therefore, will have no applicability in the facts of the present case." 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners, herein, relying upon the Government Orders dated 24.2.1994 as well as 20.9.2012 issued by the State Government, wherein it has been directed that the persons belonging to the Scheduled Tribe with regard to the Meena community of the State Rajasthan may also be issued Scheduled Caste certificate in the State of U.P. On the strength of the aforesaid Government Orders, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner was also entitled for the Scheduled Tribe certificate to be issued in the State of U.P. and consequently the benefit of reservation ought to have been granted to the petitioner. From the judgment of the Apex Court in Bir Singh (supra) it is apparent that the benefit of reservation will be available on the basis of the declaration by the presidential order and not by the Government Orders issued in WRIA No. 24188 of 1999 3 this regard and the Presidential Order provides the applicability of the benefit of reservation for the Meena community only for the State of Rajasthan and not for the State of U.P. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, the petitioner cannot be given reservation in the State of U.P. being of Meena Community as Scheduled Tribe. 12. It is further relevant to take note of the Writ-A No. 28277 of 1999 which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 4.8.2017 and no restoration/ recall application has been filed for recall of the order dated 4.8.2017. Therefore, with the dismissal of the said writ petition, interim order earlier granted in the said writ petition was vacated and this writ petition was tagged with Writ-A No. 7082 of 1999, which was also dismissed on 8.1.2016 and no restoration/ recall application has been filed for recalling the aforesaid order. Otherwise also, there was also no specific interim order in the case of the petitioner, herein. 13. In such view of the matter, the relief claimed by the petitioner in the instant petition cannot be granted. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed. September 18, 2026 n.u. WRIA No. 24188 of 1999 4 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- NASEEM UDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad