Sumit Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand
Uttarakhand HCWPMS/332/2022
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings…
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
¶1
| SL. No |
Date | Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures |
COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS |
|---|---|---|---|
| IA No. 2 of 2022 IA No. 3 of 2022 In WPMS No. 332 of 2022 Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. |
|||
| Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Bisht, Brief Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate, for the private respondents. With the consent of the parties, this Writ Petition is being taken up for final disposal. IA No. 2 of 2022, which has been filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, along with counter affidavit, would stand allowed. The counter affidavit is taken on record. So would be the IA No. 3 of 2022, which has been filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, along with supplementary counter affidavit. The Supplementary counter affidavit is taken on record. The petitioner has put a challenge to the impugned order dated 7thJanuary, 2022, by virtue of which, the respondent No.3 has rejected the application of the petitioner, for the grant of an OBC caste certificates, which the petitioner has claimed on the ground, that he belongs to “Kumhar” community, which is included in the Schedule of the caste recognised by Act No.4 of 1994, and the petitioner would be entitled to be issued with the “Kumhar” caste certificate, showing him to be belonging to OBC category. In support of his contention, he has submitted that apart from the fact that he is a permanent resident of State of Uttarakhand, and in relation thereto, the petitioner had made reference to the permanent resident certificate, which has been issued by the competent authority on 27thJanuary, 2022,while exercisingthepowers under the |
¶2
| Government Order No. 2588/1-4/sa.pra./2001 dated 28thNovember, 2001, and in that eventuality, where the petitioner is already a holder of a permanent resident certificate, issued by the competent authority, he would be falling within the ambit and the zone of consideration for issuance of the caste certificate, as per the Government Order issued by the State Government, being G.O. dated 2ndApril, 2013. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which is fact not denied by the respondents, that the issue stands covered by the judgement rendered by this Court inWrit Petition (M/S) No. 2523 of 2020, Satnam Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others,which is based on the earlier judgement as reported in2002 (2) U.D. 561, Neha Saini Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another. In that view of the matter, since it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents, that the matter stands covered by the aforesaid judgement rendered by this Court on 23rdAugust, 2021, this Writ Petition too would stand allowed in terms of the judgment of 23rdAugust, 2021, as rendered in the case ofSatnam (Supra). Accordingly, a writ of mandamus is issued to respondent No. 3, to issue caste certificate to the petitioner to the caste, to which he belongs, if it is included in the Schedule of the castes recognised under the Act No. 4 of 1994. It is expected that the respondent No.3, would issue the caste certificate within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of the certified copy of this judgement. Subject to the aforesaid, the Writ Petition stands allowed. (Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) Dated 12.04.2022 Shiv |
|---|
Parties & counsel
AI extract
- petitioner
Respondent no. 1 (unnamed in text)
- respondent
State of Uttarakhand
- respondent
Respondent no. 3
Coram
AI extract
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Uttarakhand HC
- Decided on
- · April
- Registered
- Case no.
- WPMS/332/2022
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court