JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, J. - The petitioner in this writ petition, Dr. Munni Devi, is a member of the U.P. Government Pradeshik Medical Services. Her main grievance is that she is not receiving due consideration in the matter of her promotion to which she is entitled under the relevant rules, hence has prayed tor a direction to be issued by means of a writ of mandamus direct the opposite parties to consider her case for promotion according to her seniority, giving due benefit of reserved quota for scheduled caste in the matter of promotion. 2. On perusal of the affidavits on record, filed by the petitioner and the opposite parties, it appears that were certain adverse entries for certain years in the character-roll of the petitioner. The petitioner, it appears, because of the adverse entries, was not confirmed nor promoted when, according to her, juniors to her were confirmed and promoted in the year 1981. She made representation and thereupon came to know about the adverse entries, when according to her, were not communicated. She made representations against the adverse entries. In the writ petition, it has been stated that the representations were not being decided by the opposite parties, hence a prayer has also been made in this writ petition for direction to the opposite parties to dispose of her representations. However, in the counter-affidavit, the opposite parties have given out that the representations have been disposed of. In any case, it may be mentioned here that this Court has been informed that the petitioner had also preferred a claim petition before the Public Services Tribunal against the adverse entries which has been allowed in the meantime. We are also informed that her claim for consideration of her promotion has also been upheld by the Tribunal, in view of the above position, the writ petition would have been rendered in fructuous but presently the grievance of the petitioner is slightly different. The only grievance of the petitioner with which we are concerned is to be found in para 15 of the writ petition, which reads as under : "15. That one aspect has to be pointed out. The only grievance of the petitioner with which we are concerned is to be found in para 15 of the writ petition, which reads as under : "15. That one aspect has to be pointed out. The petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Caste community but she has married Sri Prem Deo Sharma a caste Hindu and the department is not inclined to grant benefit of the reservation of the quota in the matter of promotion reserved for scheduled castes to the petitioner, and in this manner the petitioner is being illegally excluded from the benefit of reservation which is also a right within the meaning of Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India." 3. Reply to para 15 quoted above has been given in para 17 of the counter-affidavit which says that the contents of para 15 of the writ petition are not legally sustainable. 4. What emerges out of the above averments is that the petitioner though scheduled caste has married a caste Hindu. Despite this marriage the petitioner claims benefits reserved for scheduled caste in the matter of promotion, which, it appears from para 17 of the counter-affidavit, the State is not prepared to give. The main question for consideration, thus, would be whether the petitioner would be entitled for the benefit available to schedule caste persons in the matter of promotion despite her marriage with a caste Hindu or not. 5. in connection with the above point, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a case reported in N.E. Hero v. Smt. Jahan Ara Jaipal Singh, AIR 1972 SC 1840 . It was a case in a different context and after considering the custom of the Munda community, which is a scheduled tribe in Bihar, it was held that Smt. Jahan Ara may not have not have become a member of the Munda tribe merely by having married Jaipal Singh of Munda tribe but the marriage being valid and having been duly recognised according to the customs, she would become a member of tribal community. It was held that the term tribal community has a wider connotation. The only thing upon which the petitioner can reply upon is that it was not accepted by the Supreme Court in the above noted case that by marriage, Smt. Jahan Ara had become a member of the Munda tribe. 6. It was held that the term tribal community has a wider connotation. The only thing upon which the petitioner can reply upon is that it was not accepted by the Supreme Court in the above noted case that by marriage, Smt. Jahan Ara had become a member of the Munda tribe. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before the Court a photostat copy of the G.O. No. 22/39/1982-Ka-2, dated May 17, 1984 which reads as follows : 'kk la0 22@39@1982&dk0 2 fnukad ebZ 17] 1984 fo"k; %& vUrtkZrh; fookg rFkk xksn fy;k tkus ds QyLo:i mRiUu fLFkfr esa jkT;k/khu lsokvksa esa vuqlwfpr tkfr@tutkfr ds lnL;ksa dks vuqeU; vkj{k.k dk ykHkA eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS fd jkT;k/khu lsokvksa esa vuqlwfpr tkfr@tutkfr ds lnL;ksa dk vuqeU; vkj{k.k ds ifjizs;{; esa 'kklu ds le{k ;g iz'u vk;k gS fd vUrtkZrh; fookg djus vFkok xksn ysus ds QyLo:i mRiUu ifjofrZr fLFkr esa mDr vkj{k.k dk ykHk vuqeU; gksxk ;k ughaA bl iz'u dk leqfpr :i ls ijh{k.k fd;k x;k vkSj fopkjksijkUr 'kklu dk fuEuor~ er cuk gS% ( 1 ) ;fn vuqlwfpr tkfr@tutkfr dks dksbZ L=h fdlh Lo.kZ iq:"k ls fookg djrh gS rks mls fookg ds mijkUr Hkh iwoZ esa vuqeU; vkj{k.k feyrk jgsxkA ( 2 ) ;fn dksbZ Lo.kZ L=h fdlh vuqlwfpr tkfr@tutkfr ds iq:"k ls fookg djrh gS rks mls L=h dks vkj{k.k O;oLFkk ds vUrZxr ykHk vuqeU; ugha gksxkA 7. According to the above G.O. it is evident that marriage has no effect over the benefits which are admissible to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Under para 1, if a scheduled caste woman marries a caste Hindu, then even after her marriage she will continue to have all benefits admissible to her before her marriage. Similarly under para 2,if a caste Hindu woman marries a scheduled caste person, she will not be entitled to the benefits admissible to scheduled caste candidates by virtue of her marriage. 8. The said G.O. was provided by the learned counsel for the petitioner which is being placed on record. Learned Standing Counsel was required to find out and inform if there has been any subsequent G.O. changing the position in any manner. He has not brought to our notice any other G.O. superseding the one quoted above. 8. The said G.O. was provided by the learned counsel for the petitioner which is being placed on record. Learned Standing Counsel was required to find out and inform if there has been any subsequent G.O. changing the position in any manner. He has not brought to our notice any other G.O. superseding the one quoted above. In the result, the position is that although the petitioner had married a caste Hindu, she would continue to be entitled to all benefits admissible to a member of the schedule caste in the mane of service including promotion. Stand of the opposite parties in para 17 of the counter-affidavit is not correct and is even against their own G.O. may be that the deponent of the counter affidavit was not aware of the said G.O. which is, dated May 17, 1984 whereas the counter-affidavit was sworn only on August 18, 1984. 9. The writ petition is, therefore, partly allowed only to the extent that the petitioners claim for promotion shall be considered by the opposite parties whenever it is due making her available the benefits admissible to the members of the scheduled caste in the matter of promotion. 10. There would be no order as to costs.