VANDANA DHAKAD Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been preferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved from the order dated 29.6.2005 Annexure P/1 passed by High Level Committee constituted by the State Government under the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, 1995 AIR(SC) 94.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that father of the petitioner Shri Om Prakash Dhakad was migrated from the State of Rajasthan to the State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner-Vandna Dhakad has born on 17.1.1975 in Mandsor (State of Madhya Pradesh). Her father was posted as Temporary Sub Inspector in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner and her father belongs to "Dhanuk" caste which is declared as Scheduled Caste in the State of Madhya Pradesh as well as in the State of Rajasthan. Since the petitioner was born in the State of Madhya Pradesh and is continuously residing in the State of Madhya Pradesh since her birth. The caste certificate was issued by the competent authority as Annexure P/3 and also issued by the Sub Divisional Officer and that was cancelled by passing the impugned order Annexure P/1 dated 29.6.2005. The impugned order is not in accordance with the law laid down in the case of Neetu Singh Vs. State of M.P. (W.P.No.1160 of 2003 decided on 16.9.2013 at Gwalior).

(3.) In reply, this fact was admitted by the respondents that petitioner has born in the State of Madhya Pradesh, studied and brought up in this State, but her claim of Schedule Caste flows from her parentage, hence, the petitioner's being migrated Scheduled Caste "Dhanuk" which is of its origin in the State of Rajasthan and because father of the petitioner migrated from the State of Rajasthan to the State of Madhya Pradesh, the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of Scheduled Caste in the State of Madhya Pradesh as per various circulars and orders issued by the Union of India from time to time and accordingly the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed.