//
you're reading...
legal issues

obtaining false caste certificate =The Uttrakhand Public Service Commission issued an advertisement in the year 2002 inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge [Junior Division]. In the said advertisement, it was clearly mentioned that only residents of the State of Uttrakhand would be entitled to the benefit of reservation under the category of Other Backward Classes. The said advertisement also carried a proforma of the caste certificate to be submitted alongwith the application, wherein it required a certification as to “ordinarily resident” of the applicant. The appellant, herein, obtained a caste certificate, which was issued by the Thesildar, Roorkee to the effect the appellant is a resident of Roorkee and belongs to “Momin Ansari Caste”. The said certificate was dated 29.06.2002.

Kedarnathji temple in Kedarnath, Uttarkhand, India

Image via Wikipedia

 REPORTABLE

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7721 of 2011

 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 25203 of 2008]

ARSHAD JAMIL ....Appellant (s)

 VERSUS

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. ....Respondent(s)

 WITH

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7722 of 2011

 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9209 of 2006]

 WITH

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7723 of 2011

 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8617 of 2006]

 JUDGMENT

Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.

1. Leave Granted.

2. By this Judgment and Order, we propose to dispose of three appeals, 

 arising out of SLP (C) No. 25203 of 2008 filed by the appellant herein 

 Page 1 of 25

 against the order dated 13.8.2008, SLP (C) No. 8617 of 2006 filed by 

 the State of Uttaranchal against the Judgment and Order dated 

 23.12.2005 and finally SLP (C) No. 9209 of 2006 filed by the 

 appellant against the Judgment and Order dated 23.12.2005 passed 

 by the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital. 

3. In SLP (C) No. 25203 of 2008 filed by the appellant, the impugned 

 Judgment and Order dated 13.8.2008 was challenged, whereby the 

 High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, praying 

 for quashing the order passed by the respondent, cancelling the 

 caste certificate issued to the appellant. 

4. SLP (C) No. 8617 of 2006 was filed by the State of Uttaranchal 

 against the Judgment and Order dated 23.12.2005, whereby the 

 High Court issued a direction for reinstatement of the Arshad Jamil, 

 whose service was terminated by an order dated 18.12.2004. 

5. SLP (C) No. 9209 of 2006 was filed by the appellant herein, 

 challenging the Judgment and Order dated 23.12.2005, to the extent 

 it denies the appellant payment of any salary or allowances for the 

 period for which he had not actually worked. 

 Page 2 of 25

6. Since the subject matters involved in these appeals are inter-

 connected and similar, all these appeals are being taken up for 

 consideration together, and therefore, a common Judgment and 

 Order is being passed. 

7. The Uttrakhand Public Service Commission issued an advertisement 

 in the year 2002 inviting applications for recruitment to the post of 

 Civil Judge [Junior Division]. In the said advertisement, it was clearly 

 mentioned that only residents of the State of Uttrakhand would be 

 entitled to the benefit of reservation under the category of Other 

 Backward Classes. The said advertisement also carried a proforma 

 of the caste certificate to be submitted alongwith the application, 

 wherein it required a certification as to "ordinarily resident" of the 

 applicant. The appellant, herein, obtained a caste certificate, which 

 was issued by the Thesildar, Roorkee to the effect the appellant is a 

 resident of Roorkee and belongs to "Momin Ansari Caste". The said 

 certificate was dated 29.06.2002.

8. A Memorandum was issued by the Government of Uttrakhand 

 prescribing the format of the caste certificate which an applicant was 

 required to submit in case he was seeking an appointment in the 

 reserved category i.e. SC/ST/OBC. The appellant herein submitted 

 Page 3 of 25

 his application offering his candidature for the post enclosing a caste 

 certificate issued by the Tehsildar, Roorkee dated 29.06.02 and 

 appeared in the written examination held for the purpose of 

 recruitment to the aforesaid post of Civil Judge [Junior Division], and 

 after being successful in the examination he was called for an 

 interview on 26.7.2003 under letter dated 26.06.2003. The appellant 

 was found successful and was selected for the post of Civil Judge 

 [Junior Division], against a reserved category post meant for other 

 backward classes, by an appointment order dated 18.9.2003. 

9. The appellant was appointed as Civil Judge [Junior Division] on 

 probation for a period of two years. The aforesaid appointment letter 

 was issued, subject to the condition that the character, verification 

 and report of the health examination of the concerned candidate 

 should be satisfactory for judicial service. After he submitted his 

 joining report, the appellant was posted as Civil Judge [Junior 

 Division] at Purola, Utarkashi, Uttrakhand and assumed charge on 

 22.9.2003. 

10.The District Magistrate, Haridwar received a letter issued by the 

 Secretary, Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal, Haridwar 

 informing him that a complaint had been received by the 

 Page 4 of 25

 Commission against the appellant herein, wherein it was complained 

 that Arshad Jamil is a permanent resident of House No. 156, 

 Janshath House, Ansari Road, District - Muzaffarnagar, and that his 

 name appeared at Sl No. 862 of part No. 141 of Electoral List of 

 constituency No. 408 of Muzaffarnagar Legislative Assembly and that 

 he is a Member of the Muzaffarnagar Bar Association. By the 

 aforesaid letter sent on 15.09.2003, the District Magistrate was 

 requested to inform the Commission on priority basis about the 

 validity of the caste certificate of OBC issued to the appellant on 

 29.06.2002 so that the Commission could take a decision on the 

 aforesaid complaint. 

11.Pursuant to the aforesaid letter, an inquiry was conducted and the 

 Tehsildar Roorkee submitted a report dated 09.07.2003, confirming 

 that Arshad Jamil, son of Jamil Ahmed, resident of 7, Sheikhpuri, 

 Roorkee, Haridwar has been residing at that place since 1991, and 

 that he belonged to caste Momin Ansari, which comes in the list of 

 other backward class in Uttaranchal. In the said report, it was also 

 stated that it is possible, that prior to his stay in Roorkee he was 

 staying in Muzaffarnagar. In the said report, it was also stated that 

 Arshad Jamil was residing in Roorkee for about 12 years since his 

 Page 5 of 25

 name appeared in the Municipality records as tenant. It was also 

 stated that he was residing in Roorkee from 3.6.1998 to 2003 as a 

 resident of Old House No. 24 and New Number 7, Sheikhpuri, 

 Roorkee, Haridwar. It appears that a police report was also 

 submitted on 8.12.2003, that the appellant has been residing at 

 Roorkee since 1991. 

12.A letter was sent by the District Magistrate dated 9.1.2004 to the 

 Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Uttaranchal 

 Government, stating that the jurisdiction to cancel the caste 

 certificate lies with the State Government and not with him. A show 

 cause notice was issued to the appellant by the Chief Secretary, 

 Government of Uttaranchal. Under his letter dated 13.5.2004, it was 

 alleged that one Shri Abdul Kareem had submitted a complaint by 

 his letter dated 12.1.2004 alleging that the appellant had succeeded 

 in getting appointed in the Uttaranchal State Judicial Service on the 

 basis of a fake caste and residence certificate, at the address of 

 Sheikhpuri, Roorkee in collusion with the Tehsildar of Roorkee. In 

 the said letter, it was also mentioned that an inquiry was made by 

 the District Magistrate, Haridwar, who had informed the State 

 Government that the appellant was a permanent resident of District 

 Page 6 of 25

 Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh but he had produced a certificate of 

 Other Backward Classes showing himself to be a permanent resident 

 of Uttaranchal and therefore, was not entitled to get the benefit of 

 OBC Caste in Uttarakhand, as he is a permanent resident of Uttar 

 Pradesh. He was, therefore, asked to show cause as to why his 

 appointment in the judicial service should not be cancelled for the 

 aforesaid reason. 

13.The appellant submitted his reply as against the aforesaid show 

 cause notice on 20.7.2004. The contents of the aforesaid reply were 

 considered but even thereafter another show cause notice appears to 

 have been issued to the appellant on 18th September, 2004. The 

 contents of the show cause notices and replies filed were considered 

 by the State Government. On scrutiny thereof, it was found by the 

 Government that the appellant was born in District Muzaffarnagar, 

 UP and that he had also completed his education there. A Ration 

 Card had been made in his name and in the names of his family 

 members in District Muzaffarnagar and he completed his law course 

 being a student from Muzaffarnagar. He also got himself enrolled in 

 the Muzaffarnagar Bar Association. His name was also entered in the 

 electoral roll of Muzaffarnagar up to 2007, when his name came to be 

 Page 7 of 25

 deleted from the voters list after his father informed the concerned 

 authorities that the name of the appellant is to be deleted from the 

 voters list as he is now residing in Roorkee. 

14.Considering the aforesaid facts, it was held that the defense taken in 

 the replies by the appellant was baseless and that since he was 

 neither a permanent resident of the State of Uttaranchal nor 

 belonged to Other Backward Classes of State of Uttarakhand, his 

 appointment to the post of Civil Judge [Junior Division] was 

 terminated as per order dated 18.12.2004. 

15.Another order came to be issued on 2.3.2005, whereby the Tehsildar 

 Roorkee, who was the competent authority, cancelled the caste 

 certificate issued to the appellant on 29.6.2002 on the ground that 

 after a detailed inquiry it was revealed that the appellant had 

 obtained the caste certificate by showing himself a resident of 

 Roorkee in a mischievous manner, while he was actually a 

 permanent resident of Muzaffarnagar, and thereby he has misused 

 the said caste certificate. 

16.The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the legality and the 

 validity of the order dated 02.03.2005. The said writ petition was 

 registered as Writ Petition (Civil) No. 448 of 2005. The aforesaid writ 

 Page 8 of 25

 petition, filed by the appellant, was allowed by the Uttrakhand High 

 Court by its order dated 6.5.2005, whereby the High Court quashed 

 the said order on the ground of violation of principles of natural 

 justice, with liberty to the Tehsildar to issue notice to the appellant 

 and to give reasonable opportunity to file his objections against the 

 proposal to cancel the caste certificate. 

17.Consequently, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant by 

 the Tehsildar on 6.6.2005, calling upon him to show cause as to why 

 the caste certificate issued to him on 29.6.2002 should not be 

 cancelled, for the reasons stated in the said notice. The appellant 

 submitted his reply to the aforesaid show cause notice. Thereafter, a 

 second show cause notice dated 11.8.2005, in continuation of the 

 notice dated 6.6.2005, was issued to Shri Arshad Jamil. After replies 

 sent by the appellant, he was also given an opportunity to examine 

 the documents on record by issuing a letter dated 11.8.2005 which 

 was sent to his address House No. 7, Opposite Dev Nursing Home, 

 Roorkee. 

18.Despite the aforesaid letter, he did not appear and therefore, a notice 

 was pasted at the address intimating him to be present to examine 

 and peruse the relevant documents. As the appellant did not appear 

 Page 9 of 25

 to examine the said documents, the Tehsildar, Roorkee proceeded to 

 pass an order dated 1.9.2005. In the said order, the Tehsildar held 

 that after going through the documents relied upon by the objector 

 and other records available, it is revealed that the objector Arshad 

 Jamil was originally a resident of Mohalla Khalapar, Muzaffarnagar, 

 which is established by the fact that his name is mentioned as 

 against House No. 225 of Serial No. 147 of Part No. 42 of 408 

 Muzaffarnagar Vidhan Sabha Kshetra Electoral Roll, 1995. From the 

 Electoral Rolls of 2003, it was also found that a photo identity card of 

 Arshad Jamil was prepared by the Election Commission of India for 

 Electoral Roll of Muzaffarnagar Vidhan Sabha, wherein his name 

 appeared until it was deleted in 2007 on the basis of information 

 supplied by his father on 27.08.06. His father informed them that his 

 son was now staying at Roorkee. 

19.The other documents filed by the appellant were also considered, by 

 which it was deduced that the objector had obtained the caste 

 certificate in question by fraud. In that view of the matter the 

 Tehsildar, Roorkee held that such caste certificate should not have 

 been issued to the appellant and therefore, passed an order that the 

 Page 10 of 25

 caste certificate dated 29.6.2002 be cancelled by issuing his order 

 dated 1.9.2005. 

20.Meanwhile, the appellant filed writ petition No. 413 of 2005 

 challenging the order dated 18.12.2004, terminating his service. He 

 also filed another writ petition being writ petition no. 408 of 2006 

 challenging the order of cancellation of his caste certificate. The 

 High Court considered the writ petition no. 413 of 2005 filed by the 

 appellant, which was allowed by the High Court by order dated 

 23.12.2005. By the said order, the High Court directed the 

 reinstatement of the appellant with continuity of service without any 

 break, but ordered that the said reinstatement would be without any 

 salary or allowances for the period for which he had not actually 

 worked. 

21.The writ petition No. 408 of 2006 was taken up for final hearing by 

 the High Court and by Judgment and Order dated 13.8.2008 the writ 

 petition was dismissed holding that the appellant cannot get the 

 benefit of being OBC status in the State of Uttrakhand as he is a 

 permanent resident of Muzaffarnagar, UP and also that he obtained a 

 false certificate of being resident of Roorkee, District Haridwar, 

 Uttrakhand. 

 Page 11 of 25

22.As against the aforesaid, the two orders passed by the High Court, 

 three Special Leave Petitions as aforestated came to be filed in this 

 Court in which notices were issued. The same were listed before us 

 for hearing and we heard the learned counsel appearing for the 

 parties on the said Special Leave Petitions and by this common 

 Judgment and Order we are disposing of all these Special Leave 

 Petitions, after granting leave therein and by giving our reasons.

23.Counsel appearing for the appellant-Arshad Jamil forcefully argued 

 that the respondent-State did not have any jurisdiction to review the 

 order granting caste certificate in favour of the appellant. According 

 to him, after the grant of the aforesaid caste certificate dated 

 29.6.2002, the matter was once reviewed by the Tehsildar, Roorkee 

 and in the fresh inquiry also it was found and revealed that the 

 appellant was ordinarily a resident of Uttarakhand and that he 

 belongs to Other Backward Classes and therefore no further review 

 was called for and permissible. According to him, the police also 

 made a verification wherein it was also established that he has been 

 residing in Roorkee for a very long time and, therefore, an ordinary 

 resident of Roorkee. He therefore submitted that the subsequent 

 review made by the Tehsildar regarding the caste verification was 

 Page 12 of 25

without jurisdiction. Counsel also submitted before us that there has 

been enough cogent evidence on record to justify and prove that the 

appellant has been in Roorkee at least from the year 1998, which fact 

is proved from the municipal records itself, and the police verification 

report also having stated that he has been in Roorkee for about 12 

years, the order of cancellation of the caste certificate is illegal and 

without jurisdiction. He submitted that the expression "ordinarily 

resident" does not bar simultaneous residence at some other place 

also, for a person could be at two places at the same time. He also 

submitted that the order of cancellation of his caste certificate came 

to be passed on the basis of the dictation of the District Magistrate, 

which is apparent on the face of the records and, therefore, such an 

order which is passed at the behest and dictation of a higher 

authority is illegal and irrational. According to the counsel, there is 

enough evidence on record like lawyers' identity card issued by 

Uttarakhand HC Bar Association, entry of his name in the electoral 

roll of Roorkee in the year 2003, the Hibanama and also the 

certificate of the landlord showing him as a resident of Roorkee and 

the municipal records indicating the residence at Roorkee from 1998 

to 2003 which, when collectively read, would support the contention 

that the appellant is ordinarily resident of Roorkee and, therefore, 

 Page 13 of 25

 entitled to get a caste certificate of the nature which was issued to 

 him and, therefore, cancellation of the same by the authority was 

 illegal and is liable to be set aside.

24.Counsel appearing for the respondent however, while rebutting the 

 aforesaid contentions, submitted that the documents on record 

 clearly indicate that the appellant has been a resident of 

 Muzaffarnagar, UP at least upto 2002 and thereafter, in order to 

 make himself eligible to apply for a reserved post, he created 

 documents to indicate that he is an ordinary resident of Roorkee. He 

 has also drawn our attention to the various documents on record, 

 including the document which he had submitted to the Bar Council 

 of India applying for enrolment and the certificate given by the Bar 

 Council, showing his residence to be at Muzaffarnagar. It was also 

 submitted by him that the High Court was justified in upholding the 

 administrative action taken by the respondent State, as judicial 

 review of such administrative action should and could be exercised 

 only in a very limited sphere. He submitted that the aforesaid order 

 of cancellation of the caste certificate was done after an order was 

 passed by the High Court directing for giving a hearing to the 

 Page 14 of 25

 appellant and that upon giving such reasonable opportunity to the 

 appellant, his caste certificate was finally cancelled. 

25.In the light of the aforesaid submissions of the counsel appearing for 

 the parties, we have perused the records and also perused the 

 decisions relied upon by the counsel appearing for the parties. 

26.Undisputedly, and as agreed to by the counsel appearing for the 

 parties during the course of hearing of arguments, if the order 

 passed by the High Court upholding the cancellation of a caste 

 certificate is confirmed by this Court, in that event it would not be 

 necessary to go into the other aspect regarding the issue of legality or 

 otherwise of the order of termination as also the order regarding 

 payment of back wages to the appellant. On the other hand, if we 

 find that the order of the High Court cannot be sustained and that 

 the caste certificate was issued legally and justifiably, in that event, 

 not only the order canceling the caste certificate is to be set aside 

 with a direction to restore the caste certificate to the appellant but at 

 the same time the order of termination shall also have to be quashed. 

 Consequently, the question with regard to the claim for payment of 

 arrear of wages shall have to be considered.

 Page 15 of 25

27.Therefore, in our considered opinion, the issue with regard to the 

 issuance of caste certificate and cancellation thereof, is the crucial 

 question which goes to the root of the dispute between the parties 

 and the same requires our consideration at the very initial stage. 

28.Our attention was drawn to the advertisement issued by the 

 respondent-State inviting applications for filling up the post of Civil 

 Judge [Junior Division]. In the said advertisement it was clearly 

 mentioned that the candidates who claim reservation by claiming to 

 belong to Other Backward Classes of Uttarakhand, have to produce a 

 caste certificate in terms of the format attached thereto. It was 

 mentioned therein that the candidate who claims to be a member of 

 the backward classes of Uttarakhand and is ordinarily a resident of 

 Uttarakhand has to submit a caste certificate in format. The 

 appellant also while applying for the said post, obtained a caste 

 certificate which was issued by the Tehsildar on 29.6.2002, which is 

 under challenge.

29.It is no doubt true that the Tehsildar, Roorkee subsequently also 

 reiterated his stand that the appellant is a member of the other 

 backward classes and is also ordinarily a resident of Uttarakhand. 

 Subsequently, however, the same was cancelled by an order dated 

 Page 16 of 25

02.03.2005 whereby the Tehsildar, Roorkee, who is the competent 

authority, cancelled the caste certificate issued to the appellant on 

29.6.2002, on the ground that after a detailed inquiry it was revealed 

that the appellant had obtained the caste certificate by showing 

himself to be a resident of Roorkee in a mischievous manner, while 

he was actually a permanent resident of Muzaffarnagar and has 

thereby, misused the said caste certificate. A copy of the said order is 

on record. The said order indicates that District Magistrate had 

advised cancelling the certificate. The said order also indicates that 

the same was cancelled without giving any opportunity to the 

appellant. Therefore, a writ petition was filed by the appellant 

challenging the legality and the validity of the order dated 

02.03.2005. The said writ petition was allowed by the Uttarakhand 

High Court by its order dated 06.05.2005, whereby the High Court 

quashed the said order on the ground of violation of principles of 

natural justice, with liberty to the Tehsildar to issue a notice to the 

appellant and to give reasonable opportunity to file his objections 

against the proposal to cancel the caste certificate. In view of the 

aforesaid order passed by the High Court, the State Government 

became empowered to pass a fresh order in the matter of cancellation 

of caste certificate, after giving notice to the appellant to show cause 

 Page 17 of 25

 as to why it should not be cancelled. There is no dispute with regard 

 to the fact that subsequent thereto the appellant has been given 

 such an opportunity and he had filed replies thereto. The Tehsildar 

 thereafter passed a reasoned order by referring to the various 

 documents filed by the parties and giving reasons for his decisions by 

 relying upon the documents which are on record. 

30.The High Court, where the validity of the order passed by the 

 Tehsildar on 02.03.2005 was challenged, considered the contentions 

 raised by the appellant, but dismissed the writ petition holding that 

 the appellant cannot get the benefit of Other Backward Classes 

 status in the State of Uttarakhand as he is a permanent resident of 

 Muzaffarnagar, UP. The High Court has also recorded a finding that 

 the appellant obtained a false certificate of being a resident of 

 Roorkee, District-Haridwar, Uttarakhand. 

31.Although, the power and the jurisdiction of this Court in the matter 

 of re-appreciation of evidence is restricted and also keeping in mind 

 the well-settled principles that the scope of judicial review of 

 administrative action is very restricted and limited and, therefore, we 

 should be slow in interfering with the finding of facts arrived at by 

 the High Court, we still looked into the entire records and the 

 Page 18 of 25

 documents relied upon in order to satisfy ourselves that the action 

 taken by the respondent-State in canceling the certificate of the 

 appellant is legal, just and proper.

32.On considering the evidence on record and the documents placed 

 before us we find that the appellant received his education in 

 Muzaffarnagar except for a period when he studied in Mysore. He 

 also obtained his Law Degree from Muzaffarnagar Law College. 

 During the aforesaid period he was a resident of Muzaffarnagar 

 which is established from the records available with us. The 

 appellant thereafter obtained his graduation from the Law College at 

 Muzaffarnagar, and got himself enrolled with the Bar Council of 

 Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad. He submitted his application on 

 01.12.1999 and he received the enrolment on 09.03.2000 in which 

 also his address was shown as 225, Khalapur, District-

 Muzaffarnagar, U.P. His name as well as the names of his family 

 members were included in the ration card which has been made in 

 District-Muzaffarnagar. The said ration card however came to be 

 cancelled by the supply office in the year 2001, during card 

 verification scheme for want of a photograph. Despite his claim that 

 he was residing in Roorkee, there is no documentary evidence to 

 Page 19 of 25

prove the said fact except for a document which has been placed on 

record, being municipal record, but issued in the year 2003 showing 

him as a tenant of Furkan Ahmed in Mohalla Shekhpuri for the 

period from 1998 to 2003. But if he was staying in Roorkee from the 

year 1998, there was no reason why other documentary evidence is 

not available in support of his contention that he was ordinarily a 

resident of Roorkee. His name came to be recorded in the electoral 

roll of Roorkee in the District-Haridwar only in the year 2003. The 

records placed before us show that the name of the appellant was 

included in the electoral roll of Muzaffarnagar in the year 1993 on 

the basis of door to door survey made by the election commissioner. 

Since he was found residing in Muzaffarnagar, his name was 

included in the voters list of Muzaffarnagar constituency. His name 

finds place in the electoral roll of Muzaffarnagar constituency for the 

year 1993, 1995, 1998 and 2003. The voter identity card of the 

appellant was also issued to him from the Muzaffarnagar Assembly 

constituency showing him to be a resident of House No. 225, 

Mohalla-Khalapur, District-Muzaffarnagar, U.P. The name of the 

appellant in the aforesaid voter list continued to be there till his 

father informed them in the year 2006 that his son is now residing in 

Roorkee and, therefore, his name is to be deleted from the voters list. 

 Page 20 of 25

 The appellant submitted his application for being appointed for the 

 post of Civil Judge [Junior Division] alongwith the cast certificate 

 issued to him on 29.6.2002. There is no contemporaneous document 

 prior to the same showing and justifying his claim that he was 

 ordinarily a resident of Roorkee.

33.Our attention was also drawn to the Section 21 of the 

 Representation of Peoples Act, 1950 laying down the procedure and 

 method for the preparation and revision of electoral rolls in a 

 constituency. Our attention was also drawn to Rule 7 of the 

 Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 which prove and establish that 

 an electoral roll is prepared on the basis of enumeration done by the 

 election staff after making a door to door verification and on the basis 

 of the information disclosed by the family members and the house 

 they visit. On the said disclosures made, the name of the appellant 

 was included in the voters list of Muzaffarnagar upto 2003 and 

 therefore, it cannot be said that he was not only ordinarily resident of 

 Muzaffarnagar but a permanent resident thereof. 

34.In view of such authentic and sufficient documentary evidence on 

 record to reject the claim of the appellant that he was an ordinarily 

 resident of Roorkee, the findings recorded by the Tehsildar, Roorkee 

 Page 21 of 25

 in his order dated 02.03.2005 and also those recorded by the High 

 Court cannot be sought to be in any manner arbitrary, illegal or 

 irrational.

35.In the case of Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to 

 SC and ST in the State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Union of 

 India
 & Anr. reported in (1994) 5 SCC 244 a Constitution Bench of 

 this Court considered the issue regarding a person belonging to 

 SC/ST in relation to his original State of which he is a permanent or 

 ordinary resident. While examining the said issue it was held that 

 such a person who belongs to SC/ST in one State of which he is a 

 permanent or ordinary resident cannot deem to belong to SC/ST in 

 relation to another State on his migration to that State for the 

 purpose of employment, education, etc. The aforesaid conclusions 

 were arrived at by the Constitution Bench of this Court after referring 

 to the Government order wherein the expression "ordinary residence" 

 came to be explained as residence which is not for the purpose of 

 service, employment, education, confinement in jail, etc., and in 

 short it means permanent and not a temporary residence. The 

 Constitution Bench also referred to Section 20 of the Representation 

 of Peoples Act, that so far as the Government of India is concerned, it 

 Page 22 of 25

 has firmly held the view that a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe 

 person who migrates from the State of his origin to another State in 

 search of employment or for education purposes or the like, cannot 

 be treated as a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled 

 Tribe of the State to which he migrates and hence he cannot claim 

 benefit as such in the latter State.

36.The order which is passed by the Tehsildar whereby he had finally 

 cancelled the caste certificate of the appellant and which is the 

 impugned order under challenge in the writ petition, was a detailed 

 order giving cogent reasons for the decision rendered. The said order 

 cannot be termed as an order passed by him at anybody's behest or 

 at the dictation of his superior officer. The aforesaid order was 

 passed independently exercising his own independent mind and 

 upon detailed examination of the records. Therefore, the submission 

 that the same was passed at the dictation of the higher authority or 

 that the same was passed for extraneous consideration is baseless 

 and without any merit. 

37.The appellant has failed to prove and establish that he is an 

 ordinary resident of Roorkee in the year 2002 when he made an 

 application for his appointment to the post of Civil Judge [Junior 

 Page 23 of 25

 Division] and also when he applied for and obtained the caste 

 certificate. The caste certificate was initially issued to him without 

 making a proper and detailed inquiry, and the Tehsildar proceeded 

 on the basis of certain observation of two persons. A caste certificate 

 is a very important and substantial document and, therefore, while 

 granting the same a proper inquiry is required to be made by the 

 Tehsildar which appears to have been not done in the present case, 

 and the Tehsildar issued the said caste certificate to the appellant in 

 a perfunctory manner and therefore, the same was cancelled by a 

 detailed order giving cogent and valid reasons thereof. 

38.Consequently, we find no infirmity in the judgment and order dated 

 13.08.2008, in writ petition no. 408 of 2006 passed by the High 

 Court, upholding the order of the Tehsildar canceling the caste 

 certificate of the appellant. The appeal filed by the appellant against 

 the order dated 13.8.2008 of the High Court fails.

39.Consequently, the appeal filed by the State of Uttarakhand against 

 the order dated 23.12.2005, passed by the High Court, setting aside 

 the order of termination of the appellant in writ petition no. 413 of 

 2004 stands allowed in terms of this order.

 Page 24 of 25

40.In view of the aforesaid position, the appeal filed by the appellant 

 against the order dated 23.12.2005, passed by the High Court in writ 

 petition no. 413 of 2004, claiming payment of back wages is rendered 

 infructuous, which is also dismissed in terms of this order. 

 ............................................J

 [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]

 ............................................J

 [Anil R. Dave]

New Delhi,

September 7, 2011. Page 25 of 25

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,887,200 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: