ARVIND KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus for a direction to the respondents to issue caste certificate to the petitioner forthwith.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner belongs to the Kevat caste, which is notified as Other Backward Class. The petitioner is permanent resident of Village Najimabad, Tehsil-Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar. The father of the petitioner is permanently residing in the State of Uttarakhand, since 1967. The petitioner from his childhood studied in the State of Uttarakhand. Petitioner passed his All India Secondary School Examination, 2010 from Green Wood Public School Pandri, Sitarganj, Udham Singh Nagar. Petitioner got his entire education from the State of Uttarakhand. After completing his education, petitioner is in urgent need of caste certificate for higher studies. Therefore, he applied for caste certificate before the respondent no.4- Tehsildar Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar, but caste certificate is not being issued to the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier on 26.02.2008 and 05.05.2005 the petitioner was issued a caste certificate by respondents authorities. He also submitted that the petitioner was issued domicile certificate on 05.05.2005 by the S.D.M., Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. He also submitted that petitioner was born and brought up in the State of Uttarakhand and from his childhood he studied in the State of Uttarakhand. Thus, it cannot be said that petitioner is not original resident of State of Uttarakhand. He submitted that caste certificate is urgently required by the petitioner. He further submitted that petitioner applied for the caste certificate before Tehsildar Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar but the Tehsildar is not issuing the caste certificate to the petitioner and lingering the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on paragraph 7 of the judgment given by the Division Bench of this Court in writ petition no.316 of 2008 (S/B) in which this Court has observed that for defining expression "original resident" one aspect which can be taken in constructing the interpretation is to include the period of residence of 15 years so as to connote the purpose and meaning of the expression "original resident". He argued that the action of the respondents is not only illegal but also arbitrary.