MADHU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming inter alia that she was born in the State of Jharkhand, her parents are from the erstwhile State of Bihar. Prior to the bifurcation of the State of Bihar in two States, i.e. the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand, the father of the petitioner was posted Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro. Thus, for all intent and purposes, the petitioner is a bona fide resident of the State of Jharkhand, because by virtue of bifurcation of the State of Bihar, it cannot be said that the father of the the petitioner is one, who migrated to Jharkhand from Bihar.

(2.) As aforesaid, migration can not be an issue, in question in this case. What is pertinent is that prior to bifurcation Bihar and Jharkhand were an integrated State. In that view of the matter, the so-called migration which is being considered against the petitioner, cannot be considered to be relevant at all, inasmuch the parents of the petitioner had all along been a resident of Bihar while the State was the integrated State. The father of the petitioner joined service in Bokaro Steel City. This cannot be considered to be an element of migration.

(3.) When the State bifurcates the residents of the State get the benefits of migratee State because it was not on account of the acts of the residents, but on consideration of the administrative nature that the bifurcation takes place. On that count, the petitioner's relief for grant of Scheduled Caste Certificate of a Scheduled Caste category in the State of Jharkhand cannot be denied to the petitioner. The question of grant of a Scheduled Caste Certificate to the petitioner is the only question which has been pressed on behalf of the petitioner and the other questions which were raised, were not pressed for consideration.