MONIKA BHIMANIYA Vs. COUNSELLING BOARD, UPMT-2008

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Sri A. Rab has given a statement at the bar that the facts of the present case are almost similar to that of Writ Petition No. 2233 of 2008 (M/S) Ms. Manisha Bharti and Anr. v. The State of Uttarakhand and Ors., 2009 (2) U.D. 227 and, therefore, this case may also be decided in the light of the said decision. However, though broadly the facts are similar, there are some distinguishing features in the present case as against the facts of the case in the writ petition No. 2233 of 2008, although the caste of the Petitioner in both the cases is similar i.e. "Chamar".

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , this is not a case where the father of the Petitioner belongs to Uttar Pradesh from which the State of Uttarakhand was carved out on 9 -11 -2000. Father of the Petitioner originally belongs to State of Haryana where "Chamar" is also notified as Scheduled Caste. Therefore, the parameters of Ms. Manisha Bharti and Anr.'s case (supra) are not applicable in the present case. However, the fact is that the Petitioner was born and brought up in the district Dehradun which is presently a part of Uttarakhand and residing in the State of Uttarakhand for more than 20 years. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 316 of 2008 (S/B) Dharmendra Prasad, 2009 (1) U.D. 381. State of Uttarakhand & two others squarely covers the present matter on the same fact. The Division Bench has held as under:

(3.) IT is also made clear that any fees or expenses which have been deposited by the Petitioner in lieu of the earlier admission shall be adjusted for the new academic session.