Uttarakhand High Court
Mohd. Rizwan vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 6 August, 2021
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 107 of 2021
Mohd. Rizwan .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .... Respondents
Present :-
Mr. P.C. Petshali, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. G.S. Negi, Addl. C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Dated: 6th August, 2021
JUDGEMENT
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
(Through Hybrid Mode)
Misc. Application Nos.2 of 2021 and 3 of 2021, filed by
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as well as by the petitioner with the counter
affidavit and rejoinder affidavit would stand allowed.
2. The affidavits are taken on record.
3. There is a precise and a very short controversy, which
has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the present
Writ Petition, as against the act of respondents for denying to issue an
OBC certificate, which he contends that he would be entitled to
receive, because he belongs to a "Teli Caste", which is included in the
Appendix-1, Entry 24, appended with the Government Order, being
Government Order No. 118/XVII-1/2013-01 (20)/2013 dated 2nd
April, 2013, as it has been issued by the State of Uttarakhand,
governing the criteria which was to be resorted to for the purposes of
grant of the caste certificates to the eligible residents of the State, who
are included in the castes, as are specified in the Appendix-1 to the
said Government Order dated 02.04.2013.
4. The petitioner in the Writ Petition, has come up with the
case that he is 'Teli' by caste, hence, he would be falling within the
category of an OBC candidate, and in support thereto, he has made
reference to the Government Order dated 2nd April, 2013, but,
however, the respondents have denied to issue the caste certificate to
the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner had not been able to
prove, by evidence that he was residing in the State of Uttarakhand for
last 15 years, on the date, when he had applied or at the time when
State was created, for the grant of the caste certificate. It is being
further observed and argued too that he has not been able to establish,
that he was residing in the State of Uttarakhand, on the date of its
creation, i.e. 9th November, 2000, and hence, has opined that the
petitioner would not be entitled for the caste certificate.
5. The aforesaid reason may not be seem to be judicially
logical, for the reason being that under the U.P. Public Service
Commission (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other
Backward Classes Reservation) Act, 1994, in its Appendix-A,
Entry 84, has included the aforesaid caste, as to be one of the caste
falling amongst the OBC category and it is the implications made by
the said Notification No. 371 dated 22nd March, 2010, which has been
extracted, and made as to be the basis to include the said castes in
Appendix-1 to the Government Order which was issued by the State
Government on 2nd April, 2013.
6. The logic assigned by the respondents for not issuing the
caste certificate to the petitioner, on the pretext that he has not been
able to establish the fact by evidence that he has been residing in the
State of Uttarakhand, for last 15 years as on the date of creation of the
State, is absolutely happens to be in contravention to the constitutional
mandate, because that cannot be taken as to be a cut-off period, for the
purposes of issuing of the OBC certificate because the grant of caste
certificate, it is not reckoning of a residence of a person, but it is
rather only reckoning of a caste, to which the person belongs and that
too particularly in the light of the fact, which engages consideration in
the present case that the petitioner has placed on record, ample of
documents on record to show that he had been residing within the
territory of the State of the Uttarakhand, and in relation thereto, he has
placed on record, the ration card, the school certificate and the voter
ID card. Apart from it, the petitioner further contends that the
respondents authorities themselves have issued a permanent resident
certificate in favour of the petitioner in the light of the Government
order 2588 dated 20th November, 2001. Thus the fact that petitioner
is a resident of this State, is admitted by the authorities of State
themselves, which is not disputed by them at any stage ever.
7. In an eventuality, where the respondents/State has
already recognized the petitioner, as to be the permanent resident of
the State, I am of the view that the logic and the reasoning which had
been given for non issuance of the caste certificate, on the ground that
the petitioner was not residing in the State for a period of prior 15
years, as on the date, when the State was created, it cannot be a logical
reason at all to deny the issuance of the caste certificate, in favour of
the petitioner, and that too for the caste, which is covered by the
Appendix of the Government Order dated 02.04.2013, as applicable in
the State.
8. This aspect was already considered by this Court in a
judgment which was rendered in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3710 of
2018, vide its judgment on 11th March, 2021.
9. Hence, accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The
rejection order as contained in Annexure-7 to the Writ Petition is
hereby quashed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondent No.
3 with a direction to issue the OBC caste certificate, to the petitioner,
as claimed by him by filing an application before the competent
authority. The decision on the application of the petitioner for the
grant of the caste certificate would be taken by the respondent No.3,
positively within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation
of the copy of the judgment.
10. Subject to the above, the Writ Petition stands allowed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
06.08.2021
Shiv
