Heard Sri Neeraj Garg, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.M. Raturi, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner was born in Rishikesh, District Dehradun in the year 1981 and is living with her parents in this town where she was brought up. The petitioner did her schooling and graduation from Rishikesh. The petitioner's father was born in Jwalapur in District Haridwar in the year 1951 and served in Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited (IDPL) since 1977, which is located in Rishikesh. The petitioner retired in the year 2003 and after retirement, is still living in Rishikesh. The petitioner's contention is that she is a permanent resident of Rishikesh.

3. The petitioner contends that she is a Scheduled Caste belonging to 'Balmiki community and, in this regard, the petitioner's father was issued a caste certificate by the Tehsildar, Dehradun, on 22th August, 1979, indicating therein that the petitioner's father is a Scheduled Caste. The petitioner was also issued a caste certificate by the Tehsildar, Dehradun,

dated 16.11.1995, indicating that the petitioner is a Scheduled Caste belonging to 'Balmiki' community. On 8th February, 2006, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rishikesh, also issued a permanent resident certificate in favour of the petitioner. This is the admitted position, which

the respondents do not deny in their counter affidavit.

4. The petitioner applied for a diploma course in Government Girls Polytechnic, Dehradun. This course is for a period of two years divided into four semesters. The petitioner applied for admission as a Scheduled Caste candidate. Admission was granted and the College authorities directed the petitioner to submit a caste certificate within a stipulated period. Accordingly, the petitioner applied for a caste certificate on 20th August, 2010, which was rejected by the Tehsildar by its order dated 27th August, 2010 on the ground that no proof was submitted that the petitioner's forefathers were living in the geographical limits of Uttarakhand since 10th August, 1950, as per the Government Order dated 12th January, 2009 and the decisions of the Supreme Court . The petitioner, being aggrieved by the action of the Tehsildar, filed Writ Petition No. 799 (M/S) of 2011 praying for the quashing of the order of the Tehsildar dated 27th August, 2010 and commanding the respondents to issue a caste certificate.

5. During the pendency of the writ petition, since the petitioner did not have a caste certificate, the College cancelled the admission of the petitioner on 21 st April, 2011. As a result, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 800 (M/S) of 2011 for the quashing of the order dated 21st April, 2011, by which the petitioner's admission was cancelled. This Court passed an interim order dated 5th May, 2011, permitting the petitioner to appear in the second semester, but restrained the College authorities from declaring the result of the petitioner. The third semester has now started and the petitioner has not been given admission since her result has not been declared.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, the Court finds that the Tehsildar committed a manifest error in rejecting the petitioner's application for grant of a caste certificate. The order of the Tehsildar dated 27th August, 2010 cannot be sustained for the following reasons.

7. The Tehsildar has relied upon a Government Order dated 12th January, 2009. Upon a perusal of the said order, the Court finds that it has been issued by the Secretary to the State Government to the District Magistrate, Dehradun, in relation to the caste certificate of one Smt. Kamla Devi. The Court is of the opinion that this is not a Government Order as contemplated under Article 166 of the Constitution of India since it has not been issued in the name of the Governor. The order of 12th January, 2009 is an order passed by the Secretary to the Government in relation to a particula