VISHWAJEET MAJHI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant was born in 1981. A caste certificate was issued in favour of the Appellant on 29th April, 2002 by Tehsildar, Haridwar. Tehsildar, Haridwar also issued to him a permanent residence certificate. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand, while publishing vacancies of Medical Officers (Ayurvedic), sought caste certificate in the format as prescribed by the Government on 23rd March, 2003. In order to fulfill the requirements of the said advertisement, Appellant approached the Tehsildar, Haridwar for a certificate in the said form. Tehsildar did not issue the same on the ground that Appellant did not annex domicile certificate issued in his favour. Appellant thus approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 164 of 2010 (M/S). The Court, while disposing of the said writ petition, directed the Tehsildar to decide the application of the Appellant within one week. Soon thereafter, by an order dated 30th September, 2010, Tehsildar rejected the application of the Appellant. Appellant, accordingly, filed yet another writ petition. In the second writ petition, it was disclosed that Tehsildar had appointed Lekhpal / Revenue Inspector to ascertain the genuineness of the residence of the Appellant. Lekhpal / Revenue Inspector submitted his report dated 20th September, 2010, wherein it was reported that the given address of the Appellant could not be identified and the Appellant has told the Lekhpal / Revenue Inspector that he is a resident of the State of Bihar. Despite taking note of the said report, which influenced the order of the Tehsildar dated 30th September, 2010 impugned in the writ petition, by the judgment and order under appeal a learned Single Judge of this Court rejected the said writ petition.

(2.) We are of the view that when the address given by the Appellant in his application could not be identified, it was incumbent to indicate in the report when and how the Appellant approached Lekhpal / Revenue Inspector and informed him that the Appellant is a resident of the State of Bihar. That information being absent in the report, the logical conclusion would be that the said report of Lekhpal / Revenue Inspector is a make-believe document and on the basis thereof, Tehsildar having acted the proceedings before him was vitiated and, accordingly, the order passed by the Tehsildar on 30th September, 2010 was a perverse order. Instead of going into this aspect of the matter, the learned Judge dealt with the matter from some other angle, which had and has no relevance, whatsoever, to the claim. In the event Appellant was born in the State of Uttarakhand to a father, who belongs to a caste recognized as a Scheduled Caste of the State of Uttarakhand, it would be deemed that the Appellant was a Scheduled Caste of the State of Uttarakhand and entitle to a certificate in that respect. For that matter, it was obligatory on the part of Tehsildar to ascertain whether Appellant was born in Uttarakhand to a father belonging to a caste which is recognized as a Scheduled Caste in the State of Uttarakhand. It appears that the same has not been done. In the event Appellant was born in 1981 in any part of the State of Uttar Pradesh, which has since become part of Uttarakhand, the State of Uttarakhand is bound to accept that the Appellant having been so born, is entitled to whatever benefits he is entitled to as a resident of the State of Uttarakhand.

(3.) This has not been done and, accordingly, while we set aside the judgment under appeal, we also set aside the order of the Tehsildar dated 30th September, 2010 and direct the Tehsildar to disch arge his obligations in terms of the order passed by this Court on Writ Petition No. 164 of 2010 (M/S) on the basis of the above guidelines.