PRIYAMBADA PANI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has assailed the validity, properiety and legality of the order passed by the Tahasildar, Kujang rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for issuance of a Certificate of Other Backward Caste (in short 'O.B.C.') in her favour.

(2.) The facts of the case lie within a short-compass. Petitioner, who is Brahmin by caste married to one Raj Kishore Nath, who is a 'Tanti' by caste sometimes in 1986 according to the Hindu customary rites and ceremonies. Undisputedly the caste 'Tanti' comes under the purview of the Other Backward Caste and accordingly petitioner's husband Raj Kishore Nath was granted an O.B.C. Certificate by the competent authority on 17-11-2001 vide Annexure-1 to the writ application. The petitioner filed an application before the Tahasildar, Kujang for issuance of an O.B.C. Certificate in her favour, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 1282/2001. The Tahasildar. Kujanga (Opp. party No. 3) after due enquiry rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was born and brought up in a Brahmin Caste. It is alleged by the petitioner that since her husband undisputedly belongs to 'Tanti' by caste and their marriage was solemnised in accordance with the Hindu customary rites and ceremonies adopted by both the respective families and more particularly when she imbibed the rites and ceremonies performed by the people of Tanti caste and she was accepted by the Tanti Community and as they are governed by the Hindu Mitakshara Law, she is entitled to an O.B.C. Certificate from the competent authority. It has been further stated that during the last 15 years of their marriage, two children were born through their wedlock of whom one is studying in Class IV and the other in Class VII. After such marriage the petitioner became a member of the family of her husband and, thus, is enjoying the social status as a legally married wife and has been recognised as the wife of Raj Kishore Nath by the people of the community at large.

(3.) The opposite parties did not file any counter affidavit denying the facts stated in the writ petition.