City
Epaper

Allahabad HC asks UP to decide on Rajbhars in ST list

By IANS | Updated: March 17, 2022 09:10 IST

Prayagraj, March 17 The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh government to take a decision within ...

Open in App

Prayagraj, March 17 The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh government to take a decision within two months on the representation that seeks the inclusion of the state's Bhar/Rajbhar community in the Scheduled Tribes (STs) list.

Till now, this community was treated as part of the Other Backward Class (OBC) in the state.

Disposing a writ petition filed by 'Jago Rajbhar Jago Samiti' and another, a division bench comprising Justices Siddhartha Varma and Dinesh Pathak observed that since the Central government has forwarded the petitioner's representation to the Uttar Pradesh government, therefore, no useful purpose would be served to keep the matter pending before this court.

Earlier, Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi, the counsel for the petitioner, had contended that keeping in view the past records, the Bhar/Rajbhar community should be treated as ST, but the state government has given them the OBC status.

The members of this community have a strong presence in the eastern part of Uttar Pradesh.

The petitioner had applied the plea through a sitting MLA for inclusion in the Rajbhar community of Uttar Pradesh state in the list of Scheduled Tribes (ST). The matter reached the Centre, which had written on October 11, 2021 to the principal secretary, social welfare department, government of Uttar Pradesh, that it could not process the matter unless the proposal for including Bhar/Rajbhar community in the ST list had been processed by the state government.

After hearing all sides, the court noted that nowhere from the record, it transpired that the petitioners had approached the appropriate authority of the state government.

The communication dated October 11, 2011 of the Central government further revealed that the representations, which the petitioners had sent to the various authorities, had been forwarded to the principal secretary, social welfare department, government of Uttar Pradesh, for taking actions.

In its order dated March 11, while observing that "under these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by keeping this writ petition pending before the high court, the division bench accordingly directed the principal secretary, social welfare department, government of Uttar Pradesh to take a decision on the representations, which have been forwarded to him by the Central government within a period of two months in accordance with law".

Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor

Tags: HC Case: Writ C / 59942 / 2015 Sarita ShuklaAllahabad High CourtUttar PradeshUttar pradesh mayawatiThe allahabad high courtNorthwest madhya pradesh &Allahabad highPeople of uttar pradeshRajasthan unitedUttar pradesh's prayagrajNew uttar pradesh
Open in App

Related Stories

NationalHathras: Two Muslim Workers Allegedly Stopped From Working at Temple in Wake of Pahalgam Attack; Video Goes Viral

NationalMoradabad: 20-year-old Dies of Heart Attack While Riding Bullet Bike in Uttar Pradesh; Disturbing Video Surfaces

NationalUttar Pradesh: Massive Fire Breaks Out at Foam Mattress Factory in Bulandshahr’s Sikandrabad (Watch Video)

NationalUP Shocker: 18-Year-Old Student Dies After Gunshot at Varanasi School

EntertainmentTaarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah Actor Lalit Manchanda Dies by Suicide; Found Hanging at His Meerut Home

National Realted Stories

NationalRahul Gandhi in Kashmir, meets those injured in Pahalgam terror attack

NationalSibal urges PM Modi to convene Parliament session to pass resolution against terrorism

EntertainmentAamir Khan Skips Screening Of Andaz Apna Apna, Says, ‘Affected By Senseless Killings Of Pahalgam Terror Attack’

NationalTransport Ministry hauls up Ola Electric over missing trade certificates, EV firm responds

National‘Good and Bad’ Adils of Pahalgam attack: One who saved, one who killed