JUDGMENT [Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Oral)] (CLMS 5425/2012) Heard Sri B.M. Pingal, Advocate for petitioner, Sri Arvind Vashist, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri A.K. Bansal, Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent No.4. The reasons shown for delay in filing the counter affidavit by State are sufficient. The delay condonation application is allowed. The counter affidavit filed by respondent State is taken on record. 2. By means of this petition the petitioner has sought the following relief:- 1- To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 6-1-2012 passed by respondent No.3, contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. 2- To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to restore the admission of the petitioner in B.Sc. Part-I Course and further permit him to pursue the B.Sc. Part-I course. 3. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present writ petition, according to the petitioner are that the petitioner is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, who belongs to the Other Backward Caste and his sub-cast is ‘Saini’ and the authority competent has given the OBC certificate to the petitioner on 20-8-2011 after making due enquiry. The petitioner applied as OBC candidate against the vacant seat of B.Sc. Part-I (Maths Group) in Gurukul Kangri Vishwadidhyala, Haridwar and he was found to be eligible candidate to be given admission under the OBC category. Pursuant to the selection he got deposited fee before the University. The university vide impugned order dated 6-1-2012 cancelled the admission of the petitioner on the ground that vide letter dated 28-7-2011, issued by Secretary of National Commission for Backward Classes, wherein it is mentioned that the caste of the petitioner is not yet included in the list of O.B.C. of State of Uttarakhand and it was directed that until suitable notifications are issued by Central Government the list as applicable is State of Uttar Pradesh will apply. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on publication of Central List of OBCS for the state of Uttarakhand, caste ‘saini’ has been included as OBC caste at serial No. 56 vide notification dated 8-12-2011 and prior to the publication of this list the central list of backward classes applicable to the State of Uttar Pradesh continued to apply to the territory of State Uttar Pradesh, which became State of Uttarakhand by reason of U.P. Re-Organization Act, 2000 and the action on the part of respondents is illegal. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court rendered in special Appeal No. 244 of 2011, Gurukul Kangri University, Haridwar versus Km. Paurl Yadav and special Appeal no. 245 of 2011, Gurukul Kangri University, Haridwar versus Deepak Kumar, decided on 17-4-2012. 5. Learned Counsel for University has contended that the central list of OBCS in Uttar Pradesh came to an end on 12-3-2007 and the Central List of OBCS for Uttarakhand was published on 12-3-2007 and the caste ‘Saini’ has been added by the notification dated 8-12-2011 and prior to it the petitioner is not eligible for caste certificate of OBC. 6. The contention raised by learned Counsel is not tenable. The Division Bench of this Court in the above cited judgment has held that after coming to an end of Central List applicable in State of Uttar Pradesh does not means that a particular caste would be eligible from the date of publication in the Central List of OBCs for State of Uttarakhand after the date of coming to an end of list for State of Uttar Pradesh i.e. 12.3.2007. It is further held by the Division Bench of this court that we are unable to accept the contention of the appellants that by reason of notification dated 12th March 2007, the competent authority, i.e. the Central Government excluded all other communities from the list of Other Backward Class Communities from the list of Other Backward Class communities for the State of Uttarakhand and included only “Rai-Sikh (Mahatam)” for the said State. The step taken on 8th December, 2011 belies the suggestion that by notification dated 12th March,2007, all existing communities were excluded from the list of Other Backward Class Communities and only one community, namely, “Rai-Sikh (Mahatam)” was included in the list of Other Backward Class Communities. 7. The step taken on 8th December, 2011 belies the suggestion that by notification dated 12th March,2007, all existing communities were excluded from the list of Other Backward Class Communities and only one community, namely, “Rai-Sikh (Mahatam)” was included in the list of Other Backward Class Communities. 7. Likewise in the case at hand the Saini caste was included in the Central List of OBCS for the State of Uttarakhand by notification dated 8th December, 2011. In the aforesaid circumstances the petitioner cannot be denied his admission as OBC candidate during the period from the date of coming to an end of Central List existing in the State of U.P. i.e. 12.3.2007 upto 8-1-2011. 8. Therefore the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 6.1.2012 passed by respondent No.3 is quashed. The respondents are directed to restore the admission of the petitioner in B.Sc. Part-I Course and permit him to pursue the B.Sc. Part-I Course.