JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Both of them belonging to the Bhar Community (Rajbhar caste). It is admitted to the petitioners that they are denotified castes in the State of U.P. It is also admitted that they do not find mention in the Presidential Notification issued by the Government as per Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been granted admission, they have paid their fees and they have been pursuing their course for more than four months and therefore, the cancellation of the petitioners’ admissions and telling them to not pursue their studies and vacate the hostel is unjustified. 3. The grounds taken are that the action is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and even otherwise it is in violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, no notice or opportunity was given to the petitioners prior to passing of the said orders. It is further submitted that the denotified tribe of Bhar has been for the purpose of education treated to be a scheduled tribe but for the purpose of reservation in public services they have been treated to be of the other back ward category. In this view of the matter the contention raised is that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the scheduled tribe category and cancellation of their admission is erroneous. 4. This issue was settled long back by a Division Bench in the case of Vijay Prakash v. State of U.P. and others, 2005(1) ESC 649 , affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge reported in 2005 (1) AWC 811 . A perusal of the paragraph 16 of the judgment in the case of Vijay Prakash (supra) has categorically ruled that in the absence of any such Presidential Notification the claim made by the petitioners to treat them to be scheduled tribe, cannot be accepted. This position has been reiterated in a recent decision in the case of State of U.P. and others v. Shiv Kumar Bharadwaj and others, 2010(2) ADJ 854 . 5. In view of the aforesaid declared position of law which is binding on this Court as well, the claim of the petitioners cannot be accepted. 6. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. —————