UMA SAHNI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner before this Court claims to be 'Mallah' by caste. In paragraph-3 of the writ petition, it is stated that 'Mallah' has been included in the list of 'Vimukti Jaati' vide Government Order issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh dated 21.11.1992, enclosed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. In view of the circular, it is claimed that petitioner's caste is now included in the list of 'Vimukti Jaati' and therefore, she is to be treated as Scheduled Tribes. Reference has been made to the caste certificate issued in her favour by the Tehsildar. Reliance has been placed upon judgments passed by this Court in the case of Bhaiya Lal and another v. Special Secretary, Department of Education and others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25142 of 2004, decided on 20.3.2009 as well as in the case of Munna Prasad v. State of U.P., (Writ Petition No. 23408 of 2004) decided on 25.6.2004 (delivered by me).

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the writ petition.

(3.) Before entering into the issue raised, the Court may reiterate the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court with reference to the constitutional provisions, which regulate the grant of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes status to a particular caste i.e. Articles 341 and 342, which are identical in nature except that first provides for Scheduled Caste and other for Scheduled Tribes, and read as follows :