Maheshwari, J. -- 1. The petitioner has filed this appeal assailing the order dated 27.3.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1873/2011, under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

2. The writ petition was filed assailing the order dated 3.3.2011 (Annexure P-1) by which the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Gwalior, District Gwalior has refused to grant permanent caste certificate to petitioner in OBC category i.e. Jaat caste. Further direction has been prayed that the petitioner being of Jaat caste be issued the certificate of OBC category in her favour. Learned Single Judge has observed that the petitioner has switched over from U.P. to M.P. State pursuant to her marriage in 1986. At that time, neither in U.P., nor in M.P. Jaat caste was declared in OBC category. After the marriage, the Jaat caste has been declared in the OBC category in M.P. as well as in the State of U.P. It is said that as per the circular issued by the State Government dated 11.7.2005, if the persons or family migrated from one State to another, they are required to obtain caste certificate from the State of their origin. In reference to various clauses and also the circular of the Home Ministry dated 1.8.1984, it was observed that the petitioner is required to obtain the caste certificate first from the State of her origin. In the light of the said circular it was held that the petitioner is not entitled to get caste certificate in OBC category. It has further been observed that the benefit of reservation was approved to the citizens with a view to give a helping hand to the persons faced the deprivation and difficulties attached to beckward community and the petitioner being non-reserved category candidate prior to marriage cannot be permitted to enjoy the said benefit after marriage. In this respect the Court has relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University [(1996)3 SCC 545], and the judgment of Anjan Kumar v. Union of India [2006(3) JLJ 42=(2006)3 SCC 257], and it is held tht refusal to issue caste certificate as directed vide Annexure P-1 is in conformity to the aforesaid circular and also as per the judgments of the apex Court.

3. Shri Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-appellant referring the circular dated 11.7.2005 urged tht clause 3 of the said circular is not applicable in a casae of marriage of a lady from one State to another, in fact, it is applicable in the case of migration. It is further stated that the circular so referred does not deal with the contingency so arrived at in the facts of the present case therefore the findings recorded are un-sustainable in law. It is further contended that the aforementioned judgments of the apex Court relates to a person from non-category to the category person or from forward to backward category. In view of the foregoing, it is urged that the observation so made and the findings so recorded by the learned Single Judge are not based on proper reading of the instructions so issued by the Government, and also of non-application of the said judgments in right perspective, therefore, liable to be set aside.

4. Shri Raghvendra Dixit, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh by reiterating the findings so recorded by the learned Single Judge, referring the Circular dated 11.7.2005 as well as the circular of the Home Department dated 1.8.1984 submitted that the writ Court has rightly dismissed the petition, however, interference is not warranted in this appeal. The refusal of caste certificate by the authority as well as the learned Single Judge is based upon the applicability of clause 3 of the Circular dated 11.7.2005, however, prayed for dismissal of appeal.

5. After hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and on perusal of the record, it is apparent that clause 3 of the Circular dated 1