ANITA MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 01.06.2006 passed by the respondent No.2 by reasons of which the representation of the petitioner, filed in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4605/2005, has been rejected. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a direction upon the respondent No.2 not to act in pursuance of the order dated 01.06.2006 whereby the representation of the petitioner for grant of Schedule Tribe certificate has been rejected. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of a direction upon the respondent No.3 to forthwith grant Scheduled Tribe certificate to the petitioner.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case, as borne out from the writ petition, is that the father of the petitioner, namely, Gobardhan Mahto was 'Kurmi' by caste, who solemnized marriage with Fulmani Tudu, a lady hailing from the Scheduled Tribe community and out of the said wedlock, the petitioner was born. The petitioner applied for issuance of residential as well as caste certificate before the Circle Officer, Nala (under District-Jamtara) for which the Circle Officer requested the District Welfare Officer, Jamtara to inquire into the matter. A copy of the said letter was also communicated to the respondent No.2, who vide letter dated 28.01.2003, directed the Circle Officer to act in accordance with the judgment rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Anjan Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2006) 3 SCC 257. The Block Welfare Officer, Nala made an enquiry in which the villagers of Lakhipara informed in writing that the marriage of the parents of the petitioner was performed as per tribal rituals and the petitioner has been accepted in the Tribal community of her mother. Thereafter, vide letter No.56 dated 05.08.2003, the respondent No.3 requested the respondent No.4 to give a direction for grant of Scheduled Tribe certificate to the petitioner. Subsequently, the respondent No.4 directed the respondent No.3 to grant Scheduled Tribe certificate to the petitioner, but the said certificate was not issued to the petitioner. As such, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 4605/2005 before this Court and vide order dated 16.11.2005, the matter was remitted back to the respondent No.2 to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation for issuance of the Scheduled Tribe certificate within a period of three months. Thereafter, in compliance of the order dated 16.11.2005 of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No. 4605/2005, the respondent No.2 rejected the petitioner's representation vide impugned order dated 01.06.2006 giving reference to the judgment rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Anjan Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Supra) and observing, inter alia, that earlier the petitioner had filed an affidavit before the Circle Officer stating that she belongs to 'Kurmi' caste.