AJEETA KHEDLE Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REGARD being had to the similitude of the issue involved in these two writ appeals, they were heard analogously and are decided by this singular order. Be it noted, the order dated 15-5-2009 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby he has dismissed the two writ petitions is under assail in these writ appeals.

(2.) THE facts which were exposited before the learned Single Judge are that the petitioners who are the daughters of one B.L. Khedle being resident of Sehore and 'dhobi' by caste are the members of Scheduled Caste as per Entry 22 of the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order, 1950. THE petitioner in Writ Petition No. 15108/2007 had obtained a temporary/provisional caste certificate and got admission in College of Agriculture Engineering Jawaharlal Nehru Kendra Vishwa Vidyalaya as a Scheduled Caste candidate. Subsequent to her admission, the College Authority demanded the permanent caste certificate. Being apprehended, she approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 8441/2006 which was disposed of by order dated 30-8-2007 directing the Sub Divisional Officer, Sehore to issue caste certificate permissible under law and an interim protection was granted to the effect that till such decision is taken no adverse action be taken against her. Consequent to the aforesaid qrder, a Case No. 147/B-121/2007 was registered and an inquiry was conducted by the Revenue Officer and eventually, by order dated 11-10-2007 the application for grant of certificate was rejected on the foundation that the father of the petitioner is originally resident of District Betul and lived at Sehore since 1961 and hence, though the petitioner was born at Sehore, she cannot treated to belong to a Scheduled Caste.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge posed the question whether the petitioners whose father migrated from District Betul and thereafter settled at Sehore can claim to belong to Scheduled Caste. He referred to the decisions rendered in Ku. Madhuri Pa til and another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Department and another, AIR 2000 SC 94, State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind, (2001) 1 SCC 4 and Union of India Vs. Dudh Nath Prasad, AIR 2000 SC 525 and eventually expressed the view as follows:?