Digambar Singh Petitioner v. Union Of India And 2 Ors. S

B. Amit Sthalekar, J.:— Sri. Ashutosh Srivastava files his appearance on behalf of the respondents. The same is taken on record.

2. Instructions given by Sri. Ashutosh Srivstava are kept on record.

3. Heard Sri. Prem Shankar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Ashutosh Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.

4. Petitioner has appeared in the selection for the post of Constable (GD) in the Central Police Force as a Jat under the Jat OBC quota. He was declared successful but at the time of medical examination he was turned back.

5. The Supreme Court in the case of Ram Singh v. Union of India (2015) 4 SCC 697 has held that Jat in the central list of other backward classes for the State of Bihar, Gujrat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, NCT of Delhi, Bharatpur and Dholpur Districts of Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Uttrakhand do not fall under the category of OBC.

6. Para 56 of the judgment reads as under:—

“56. For the various reasons indicated above, we cannot agree with the view taken by the Union Government that Jats in the 9 (nine) States in question is a backward community so as to be entitled to inclusion in the Central Lists of Other Backward Classes for the States concerned. The view taken by the NCBC to the contrary is adequately supported by good and acceptable reasons which furnished a sound and reasonable basis for further consequential action on the part of the Union Government. In the above situation we cannot hold the Notification dated 4-3-2014 to be justified. Accordingly the aforesaid Notification bearing No. 63 dated 4-3-2014 including the Jats in the Central List of Other Backward Classes for the States of Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, NCT of Delhi, Bharatpur and Dholpur Districts of Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand is set aside and quashed.

The writ petitions are accordingly allowed.”

7. The petitioner is a resident of Bharatpur, Rajasthan and, therefore, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Singh (supra) he could not have applied under the OBC as a Jat.

8. Legal proposition settled by the Supreme Court could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

9. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.