Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 820 (PAT)

Shambhu Prasad v. Union Of India

2006-09-08

AFTAB ALAM

body2006
Judgment 1. Hoard Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has come to this Court challenging the action of the Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Gopalganj in striking-off the name of his son who was earlier admitted in the school for failure to produce his caste certificate. 3. It is an admitted position that Pravin Kumar, the son of the petitioner was admitted to Class-1 in the school on a seat reserved for a Scheduled Tribe child. The admission was made on production of the caste certificate of the petitioner, the childs father in which he was described as GOND and a member of the Scheduled Tribes. At the time of the admission, the childs mother gave an undertaking that she would produce the childs caste certificate within one month from the date of admission. The childs caste certificate was not produced despite reminders from the school and consequently the name of the child was struck-off from the schools register. 4. The explanation as to why the caste certificate was not produced comes from the counter affidavit filed not on behalf of the School but on behalf of the District Magistrate, Gopalganj. In this affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner had not even applied for the caste certificate for his son. lt is further explained that earlier GOUR/ GONR domiciled in the district of Gopalganj were equated with GOND (presumably on account of phonetic similarity) and they were accordingly given caste certificate as Scheduled Tribes. Latter, the fallacy was realised and the GOUR/GONR were taken away from the Scheduled Tribes category and were put in OBC Schedule-l and the GOUR/GONR of Gopalganj were now given the caste certificate of OBC Schedule-l. In the affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner, apparently aware of these developments, had not filed an application for the caste certificate of his child. 5. On hearing counsel for the petitioner and on going through the materials on record, l am satisfied that no case is made out for any interference in this matter by this Court. This writ petition is dismissed. 6. This order is being passed in presence of Mr. Mayanand Jha, Central Government Counsel and the J.C. to G.R XII, representing the State.