My wife eligible for obc certificate with her father name ?


Hi There,
I am a "Sikh Jat" from Kanpur Uttar Pradesh. We (Sikh Jat) recently included in the UP State OBC List by Yogi Govt. The confussion is only related to mine wife OBC status as mine Father in Law is from the same caste (Sikh Jat) but resides in different state (Haryana) where the Sikh Jat not come under the OBC category. As per mine information, a married women will always collect the cast from her father and the reservation benefits will be accoring with the current permanent living state. Sikh Jats fall under OBC in uttar pradesh.
Can I claim OBC certificate for my wife with her father's name ? Please Help

 
Reply   
 

No, by marrying u, she would not become OBC not only in U. P, but in entire India.
 
Reply   
 



First of all thanks to the answer.

To tell you the truth, it's very shocking to hear that answer. I just discussed the whole matter with local advocates. They confirmed that my wife will took cast from her father (sikh jat) and will lie under the OBC category in Uttar Pradesh where the sikh jats are included in the OBC. The UP govt will treat my wife as migrant candidate after marriage with UP Domicile Certificate.

Please comment your views about aboce statement.

 
Reply   
 

Kindly send me your email address so that I can forward the Supreme Court judgment in this context. My email: prakash1971dhusia@gmai.com
 
Reply   
 
FIN

Obtain the uthenticated copy of notifications issued by State Govt on the subject and check for e.g; permanent living status, as in query.

The LOCAL counsel may not be wrong and might have opined that the provisions & benefit extended

by State Govt might be applicable in state govt only and might have also opined that post marriage your wife is bonafide resident of UP ( permanent matrimonial home)  and even that you may get the marriage registered, obtain marriage certificate,  and apply for domicile of UP for your wife.

Or your local counsel is wrong.

And don’t get shocked.

The above postor has been referring to UP state enactments hinting IT is specialist in UP matters.

IT may be right.

Although as per your post and LOCAL counsels of UP the above postor is wrong, and IT may not be for the 1st time at LCI also that IT is wrong. IT might have been wrong at other portals and in practice, practical life.

Which Apex Court judgment is supplied to you?

What would be the fate of clients at the hands of counsels that are wrong, be IT above postor!

So one should check, re check with LOCAL counsels before and after posting queries at online portals.

There is NO harm in obtaining 2nd, 3rd opinion to reassure oneself.

Thereafter you may post if LOCAL counsels were wrong or right.

 

State of UP is not a union territory.

 
Reply   
 
FIN

You may GO thru;

Supreme Court of India

Mrs. Valsamma Paul vs Cochin University And Others on 4 January, 1996

Equivalent citations: AIR 1996 SC 1011, 1996 (1) CTC 301, (1996) 3 GLR 92, JT 1996 (1) SC 57, 1996 (1) KLT 169 SC, 1996 LablC 919, 1996 (1) SCALE 85, (1996) 3 SCC 545, 1996 1 SCR 128, 1996 (1) UJ 626 SC

Bench: K Ramaswamy, B Hansaria

 

 

Allahabad High Court

Surendra Kumar Kanwat vs Union Of India Thru. Sec. And 5 ... on 26 October, 2015

Bench: Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, Chief Justice, Yashwant Varma

 

 

 

 

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

 

 

 

Chief Justice's Court                                           AFR

 

 

 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 689 of 2015

 

 

Basically, the case of the appellant is that in exercise of its discretionary power, the State has granted the benefit of reservation to persons who have migrated from other States to the State of Uttar Pradesh as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for the purpose of education and employment even though the community in question is not included in the Presidential Order designating Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in relation to the State of Uttar Pradesh.

 

Delhi High Court

Dsssb vs Vikas Kumar on 27 November, 2013

Author: Pradeep Nandrajog

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                Judgment Reserved on: August 12, 2013

                             Judgment Delivered on: November 27, 2013

 

+                           WP (C) 3049/2012

 

 

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gurminder Kaur vs Director Education Recruitment ... on 31 March, 2017

CWP No. 6835 of 2016 and other connected matters                             -1-

 

 

217+228+230 (13 cases)

 

in true sense of shifting from one area to another in search of jobs. On marriage, they have obtained a domicile in the State of Punjab and have become residents thereto. If by birth they are disadvantaged and after marriage their caste which is acquired by birth continues to be recognized as a disadvantage caste/tribe/class, they would require the same protection as has been given to them by the Constitution of India under … at their native place as has been held in the judgment rendered by the High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Sahendra Bai (supra). This is situation as envisaged by the Supreme Court in the case of Marri Chandra Shekar Rao (supra) where the transfer is involuntary and in that perspective, the policy 12 of 13 CWP No. 6835 of 2016 and other connected matters -13- dated 17.01.1996 would certainly require reconsideration.

18. Therefore the above noted writ petitions are being disposed of by giving a direction to the State to reconsider the policy dated 17.01.1996 in the light of the observations made herein above and para 21 of the judgment rendered in Marri Chandra Shekar Rao's case, where the transfer from one State to the other is involuntary. Let a decision be taken in this regard expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The interim protection granted is extended till then.

 

Supreme Court of India

Ranjana Kumari vs State Of Uttaranchal & Ors on 23 September, 2013

Author: …………………………..J.

Bench: G.S. Singhvi, V. Gopala Gowda

          

 

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL No.8225  of 2013

                  (Arising out of SLP(C) No.33724 of 2011)

 

15. The question arising in this appeal is whether a person like the appellant, who is a Scheduled Caste in the State where she was born will not be entitled to the benefit of reservation after marriage in the State where her husband is living despite the fact that the husband also belongs to Scheduled Caste and the particular Caste falls in the same reserved category in the State of migration and that she is a permanent resident of that State.

16. Since the other related matter has been referred to a larger Bench, we think that it would be just and proper to refer this matter also to the larger Bench. Ordered accordingly.

17. The Registry is directed to place the papers before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for consideration and appropriate order.

 

 

 

Supreme Court of India

S. Pushpa And Others vs Sivachanmugavelu And Others on 11 February, 2005

Author: G P Mathur

Bench: Cji, K.G. Balakrishnan, G. P. Mathur

           CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil)  6-7 of 1998

 

Recent judgment of Apex Court;

 

Supreme Court of India

Sunita Singh vs State Of U.P . on 19 January, 2018

Author: M M Shantanagoudar

                                                 1

 

 

                                                                NON-REPORTABLE

                             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                               CIVIL APPEAL NO._487 OF 2018

                            (Arising from SLP(C) No.7181 of 2016)

 

And;

Bombay High Court

Rajendra Shrivastava vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 January, 2010

Bench: B.H. Marlapalle, A.S. Oka, R.Y. Ganoo

                                                                                        1

 

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 

 

 

 

                                                                                

                     CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2347 OF 2009

And;

Bombay High Court

Mrs. Anuradha Sudhakar Katkar vs Divisional Caste Scrutiny ... on 3 October, 2017

Bench: B.R. Gavai

                                                           40-WP-9528-17+.doc

 

Sharayu.

 

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 

                          WRIT PETITION NO. 9528 OF 2017

 

And;

Supreme Court of India

Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 18 January, 2012

Bench: Aftab Alam, Ranjana Prakash Desai

                                                                           REPORTABLE

 

 

                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 

                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 

 

                CIVIL APPEAL NO.    654     OF 2012

 

           (Arising out of S.L.P (CIVIL) NO.4282 of 2010)

 

And;

Andhra High Court

Sabbella Siri Manjoosha Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. ... on 2 August, 2016

       

 

 

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND   THE HONBLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS                     

 

WRIT PETITION No. 24880 of 2016  

 

02-08-2016

 

 

And;

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Smt. Bhagwati Devi vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 2 February, 2009

                                1

 

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

                       JODHPUR

 

                            ORDER

 

          S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.632/2009

 

                    Smt. Bhagwati Devi

                            Vs.

             The State of Rajasthan and Others

 

              Date of Order         ::   02.02.2009

 

                      PRESENT

             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR

And;

Supreme Court of India

Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs Union Of India And Ors on 10 April, 2008

Writ Petition (civil)  265 of 2006

 

 

And discuss your matter with your LOCAL counsel per facts of your matter

 
Reply   
 

First of all very very thanks to OM & Prakash for the support and valuable time.

I had already acquired the domicile certificate (permanent address) for my wife in 2014 and even our Ration Card is with my Wife name as "Mukhia". We got married in 2003, me and my father in law lies under the same cast (SIkh Jat), the only problem or confusion is that the Sikh Jat lies under General Category in Haryana (mine Father in law state) and Sikh Jat lies under OBC in Uttar Pradesh (me & my wife state).

I am planning to visit tehsildar office tomorrow for any sure confirmation.

Thanks again for the help, God bless you.

 

 
Reply   
 

Oops, Thanks to Kumar Doab too

 
Reply   
 

Very kind of you Mr. Navneet.
 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

Search Forum:








×

  LAWyersclubindia Menu