Uttarakhand High Court
Through: Shri M.K. Ray vs State Of Uttarakhand on 20 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (MS) No. 2144 of 2016
Km. Kavita Gangwar. ................Petitioner.
Through: Shri M.K. Ray, learned counsel for
the petitioner.
-Versus-
State of Uttarakhand
and others. .........Respondents.
Through: Shri Vinod Nautiyal, learned
Deputy Advocate General for the State /
respondents.
Date of Hearing and Order : 20.07.2022
Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.
(Upon hearing of learned counsel for the parties, the Court has passed
the following Orders):
1. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for
issuance of a direction to the respondent no. 3 to issue a caste
certificate in favour of the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar
controversy has been settled by this Court in Writ Petition (MS)
No. 514 of 2022 (Jyoti Saini Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others)
decided on 11.07.2022. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid
judgment are quoted as under:
"2. The learned counsel for the petitioner at outset
submitted that the petitioner belongs to Saini Caste, and,
therefore, belonging to other backward class. She is
unmarried but the Tehsildar rejected her application on the
ground that she is not a permanent resident of
Uttarakhand, as she has not placed any record to show that
she is the resident of the State of Uttarakhand or within its
territory prior to 1985.
3. It is not disputed at this stage that she is resident of
village Dhanauri, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. Mr.
Yogesh Pandey, the learned counsel for the State would
submit that unless a person is residing in the State of
Uttarakhand since 1985, he/she cannot be declared as a
permanent resident of the State of Uttarakhand. But, it is 2
also not disputed by the learned State Counsel that birth of
the petitioner took place in the Uttarakhand after 2000, i.e.,
after formation of the State. We do not find any reason for
the attitude that has been taken by the Tehsildar in
rejecting the application of the petitioner, especially when
the provision made by the welfare state for betterment of
backward class people. This kind of approach is not
appreciated by this Court. This issue has already been
covered by the judgment passed by the Co ordinate Bench
of this Court in WPMS No. 2523 of 2020 and WPMS No.
1518 of 2022 vide order dated 23.08.2021 and order dated
30.06.2022, respectively.
4. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed.
06.03.2022, Annexure No. 1A to the writ petition, is
hereby quashed. Respondent no. 3- Tehsildar, Tehsil
Roorkee, District Haridwar is directed to provide caste
certificate to the petitioner within seven days."
3. In the present case, it is not disputed at this stage that
petitioner belongs to "Kurmi" caste, which falls under the
category of "Other Backward Class". Hence, there is no
impediment in issuing the caste certificate in her favour.
However, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State submits
that petitioner should file an affidavit to the effect that she shall
not apply for a caste certificate in any other State except State of
Uttarakhand.
4. Let petitioner file an appropriate application along with
affidavit, copy of caste certificate issued to her sister and a
certified copy of this order before respondent no. 3. On such an
event, if there is no other impediment in issue in this case, then
caste certificate shall be issued by respondent no. 3 in favour of
the petitioner within fifteen days from the date of production of
the application.
5. With such observations, the writ petition is allowed. There
shall be no order as costs. Urgent certified copy of this order be
supplied to the learned counsel for the parties, as per Rules.
(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J)
SKS
