Kiran Pal Balmiki and others vs State of Uttarakhand and others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.—Heard Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

The petitioners claim to be the member of "Scheduled Caste" (from hereinafter referred to as "SC"), which is known as "Balmiki". It is not disputed by the State Authorities that the caste "Balmiki" is notified as SC in the State of Uttar Pradesh as well as in the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioners now seek the caste certificates of the caste of which they belong and on which there is absolutely no dispute. All the same, it is being denied to the petitioners by the concerned authorities and their applications have been rejected vide order dated 11.7.2011 on grounds that the petitioners are not the domicile /permanent residents of State of Uttarakhand, and therefore such a certificate cannot be granted.

This Court in Neha Saini Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another AIR 2010 Uttarakhand 36 as well as in Smt. Madhu Arya Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2011 (1) U.D. 292 has held that there is nothing like a provincial domicile and each citizen of India has only one domicile which is "domicile of India". Therefore not granting the caste certificate to the petitioners on the above ground is wholly illegal. There is no doubt that the petitioners were born in Uttarakhand and resides in Uttarakhand. They are therefore liable to be treated as a permanent resident of Uttarakhand. Under these circumstances, the denial of a caste certificate to the petitioners is incorrect.

The order dated 11.7.2011 is set aside. Direction is given to District Magistrate, Haridwar to give a caste certificate to the petitioners in accordance with law.

It is made clear that before any such exercise, the concerned authorities shall take an affidavit from the applicants as well as from their fathers that they are permanent residents of State of Uttarakhand and they have not applied for a caste certificate from any other State or have not taken any benefit of reservation from any other State, but from the State of Uttarakhand. It goes without saying that in case the averments of such an affidavit found to be false, the concerned authorities must take action in accordance with law against the petitioners or the persons giving such an affidavit.

With above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. The concerned authority shall satisfy itself regarding other eligibilities but shall not refuse the caste certificate merely on the question of domicile, as the same is irrelevant.

No order as to costs.