The main legal point established is that permanent residence in Uttarakhand, as per the Government Orders, qualifies an individual for a caste certificate, regardless of the date of residence.

ORDER

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - Brief facts, which engages consideration in the present writ petition are, that the petitioner has agitated his grievance being aggrieved as against the impugned order dated 17.12.2020, which was passed by respondent no.3, by virtue of which, his application for the grant of caste certificate has been rejected.

2. If the reason for rejection of the application of the petitioner are taken into consideration, primarily, the reason for denial to issue the caste certificate has been on a sole ground, that the petitioner has not placed any evidence on record to show that he was the resident of the State of Uttarakhand or within its territory prior to 1985. The other facts, which are apparent from the record of writ petition are that the petitioner has come up with the case, that the petitioner and his predecessors stood settled in the village called as Aloo Farm, Hempur Ismail, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, where they have got their landed property and at the time of creation of the State of Uttarakhand, they were already the residents of the State, apart from the fact that the petitioner himself has taken birth on 08-01-1999, and accordingly based on the aforesaid facts he brought on record, the petitioner has contended that he would be entitled to be issued with the caste certificate.

3. The respondents after conducting an enquiry and based on the Government Order No. 2588 dated 20-11-2001, had already issued a permanent resident certificate in favour of the petitioner. Apart from it, the petitioner has also submitted that he had done all his schooling from the Institutions, which are located within the territorial domain of the State of Uttarakhand. For example, Government Higher Secondary School, Jaitpur Ghosi, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, from where he studied in the said institution ever since 24.04.2004 to 31.03.2012 and as per the school records also, and the testimonials supplied by the school authorities, his caste has been recorded therein as to be 'Jatav'.

4. He submits that the caste, to which the petitioner belongs, is 'Hindu Jatav', which is included in the schedule, which has been issued by the State of Uttarakhand, and has been included in the list of the Scheduled Castes, which is being recognised by the State and the said caste is contained at item no. 24 of Part XXIV-Uttaranchal in the Amendments to the Constitution(Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. The respondents had rejected the application of the petitioner merely on the ground, that there was no evidence on record to substantiate as against of the petitioner that he had complied with the conditions given by the Government Order dated 02.04.2013, and that he was the resident of the State of Uttarakhand, prior to 1985, which was the cut-off-date as provided in the said Government Order dated 02.04.2013.

5. An identical issue had come up for consideration before the Coordinate Benches of this Court including this Court also, that in those eventualities where a person applying for the grant of a caste certificate has taken birth within the territorial domain of the State of Uttarakhand, as when it was created w.e.f. 09.11.2000 and particularly when the cast to which he belongs falls in the scheduled of recognized castes to whom, the caste certificate would be issued by the competent authority of the State. In that eventuality, as a consequence of the judgment rendered by this Court reported in 2002(2) UD 561, Neha Saini Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, and particularly the reference may be had to para-6 of the said judgment that a recognition of the caste were always be dependent upon the place on permanent residence of the person consent. Para-6 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:-

"6. What goes to the root of the present dispute is the concept of "domicile" and the misconception prevalent in the State and particularly with those, who are authorised to deal with the issues related to domicile. Therefore, fi