Uttarakhand High Court
Madhvi Pundir vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 3 March, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 526 of 2025 (M/S)
Madhvi Pundir ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ........ Respondents
Present : Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta and Mr. Rafat Munir Ali, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Mr. Mahendra Singh Bisht, Brief Hlder for the State/respondent
nos.1 and 3.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in the instant petition is made to
the order dated 04.11.2014 of the State Caste Scrutiny
Committee, by which, the Caste Certificate of Other
Backward Class ("OBC"), issued in favour of the petitioner
has been rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. This is the second round of litigation. It is the
case of the petitioner that she was married to one Girish
Chandra Pundir, who belongs to "Sonar" class, which is
an OBC. Accordingly, she was issued OBC Certificate. The
petitioner is appointed as a Teacher. Earlier also, on a
complaint, the Sub Divisional Magistrate passed an order
dated 05.12.2023, which was challenged by the petitioner
in WPMS No.65 of 2024 ("the first petition"). The first
petition was decided by this Court on 10.05.2024. Despite
specific directions of the Court, again the impugned order
has been passed by the Committee, which is not
empowered to do so.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that the limited question that is raised by the
petitioner is that the constitution of Caste Scrutiny
Committee is not as per the directions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, passed in the case of Kumari Madhuri
Patil and another vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal
Development and others, (1994)6 SCC 241. He would
submit that the Caste Certificate was provided to the
petitioner 20 years ago; now, at this stage, it should not
be interfered with.
5. On 19.02.2025, when the matter was taken up,
the Court observed as follows:-
"The caste certificate of the petitioner has
been cancelled on the ground that she was a
member of general caste before marriage.
Learned counsel for the petitioner raises
a question with regard to the procedure that
has been adopted for scrutinizing the caste
certificate that has been issued to the
petitioner.
Let petitioner file a short affidavit as to
what was her caste prior to marriage? When
she was married?"
6. Pursuant to the Court's direction, a
supplementary affidavit is filed by the petitioner and para
2 of it, she writes that, "on 18.11.1979 the petitioner
was born in Caste name "Rana" which is an
unreserved category for the purpose of reservation in
the services." The petitioner does not belong to OBC by
birth. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner also, that OBC status would not be acquired by
marriage; one should have it by birth. The petitioner has
obtained an OBC Certificate after marriage, which by
every means, is a wrong Certificate. The petitioner ought
not to have been issued OBC Certificate.
7. Now, the question that has been raised that the
Committee for scrutinizing the Caste Certificate has
wrongly been constituted. It appears that by one way or
the other, the petitioner wants to keep the matter
pending. The first petition was decided by this Court on
10.05.2024 and the Court passed the following order:-
"(7) Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.
However, it shall be open to the Caste Scrutiny
Committee to examine the issue of caste status of
petitioner, as per law."
8. This order was challenged by the petitioner in
Special Appeal bearing SPA No.184 of 2024, which was
disposed of with the directions that the respondents can
proceed in accordance with law, as per the judgment and
order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri
Patil (supra).
9. The procedure ensures fairness in any action.
In the instant case, it is admitted to the petitioner that
she does not belong to OBC, but she has a Certificate.
What she is insisting is that though, I am not an OBC
person, but my Certificate has wrongly been cancelled. If
the petitioner is a Teacher, she should have surrendered
the OBC Certificate on the ground that it has wrongly
been obtained by her. But, she does not do so. She is
repeatedly before the Court on one ground or the other. In
such cases, it has to be seen whether just for following
the procedure, the matter should be sent back to the duly
constituted Committee again. Would not it be a mere
formality?
10. In the matter of following the principle of
natural justice, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs.
Sudhir Kumar Singh and others, 2020 SCC OnLine SC
847, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-
"42.5 In cases where facts can be stated to be
admitted or indisputable, and only one conclusion is
possible, the Court does not pass futile orders of
setting aside or remand when there is, in fact, no
prejudice caused. This conclusion must be drawn by
the Court on an appraisal of the facts of a case, and
not by the authority who denies natural justice to a
person."
11. Para 42.5 above, is squarely applicable in the
instant case. The facts are admitted and undisputed.
There is only one conclusion possible, which is that the
petitioner does not belong to OBC. It is admitted, as well
in the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. The
petitioner admits that she does not belong to OBC
category. By the impugned order, in fact, no prejudice is
caused to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court does not
see any reason to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, the
writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of
admission itself.
12. The petition is dismissed in limine.
4.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
03.03.2025
Sanjay
