JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Parikshit Saini, the learned counsel for the petitioners in WPMS No.124/2011 and WPMS No.1138/2011, Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, the learned counsel for the petitioner in WPMS No.210/2010, Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner in WPMS No.1948/2010, Mr. Manish Arora, the learned counsel for the petitioners in WPMS No.2006/2010 & 208/2011, Mr. L. K. Verma, the learned counsel for the petitioner in WPMS No.2045/2010 & 1213/2009, Mr. Lalit Tiwari, the learned counsel for the petitioner in WPMS No.2214/2010, Mr. S. K. Shandilya, the learned counsel for the petitioner in WPMS No.2255/2010, Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, the learned counsel for the petitioner in WPMS No.138/2011, Mr. B. D. Pande, the learned counsel for the petitioners in WPMS No.214/2011, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner in WPMS No.923/2011 and Mr. S. N. Babulkar, the learned Advocate General with Mr. B. D. Upadhyaya, the learned Additional Advocate General for the State. 2. In this group of petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in rejecting their application for grant of a caste certificate or cancellation of the caste certificate or refusing to grant a caste certificate on the ground that the petitioners are not the original resident (Mool Niwasi) of the State of Uttarakhand. For facility, the facts of each case is narrated hereunder in brief. 3. In Writ Petition No.124 of 2011 (M/S), the petitioner is residing in District Haridwar since 1991 and belongs to a Jat caste which was notified as Other Backward Classes (hereinafter referred to as OBC) by the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh and the same is also notified as an OBC in the State of Uttarakhand. After the creation of the State of Uttarakhand, the petitioner was granted a permanent resident certificate by the authority on 24th June, 2010. The petitioner applied for a caste certificate, which was rejected by the Tehsildar by an order of 31st December, 2010 on the ground that the petitioner is not an original resident of Uttarakhand and that he is the original resident of District Muzaffarnagar, which is in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The impugned order admits that the petitioner was residing in District Haridwar, Uttarakhand for the past 15-20 years. 4. The impugned order admits that the petitioner was residing in District Haridwar, Uttarakhand for the past 15-20 years. 4. In Writ Petition No.1213 of 2009 (M/S), the petitioners contend that they are the original resident of District Fatehpur, which is in the State of Uttar Pradesh and that the petitioner no.1 settled in District Nainital in the year 1987 as he joined the services in H.M.T. Factory at Ranibagh, but subsequently, all the petitioners have started practice as an Advocate in the High court of Uttarakhand, Nainital. The petitioners claimed that they are residing in District Nainital for the past 24 years. The petitioners contend that they are ‘Kurmi’ by caste, which comes under the category of OBC and is recognized in Uttar Pradesh as well as in Uttarakhand. It is contended that the petitioners were issued a caste certificate by the State of Uttarakhand in 2001, 2005 & 2006, but, subsequently upon a fresh application being filed, the Tehsildar by an order of 13th July, 2009 has rejected the application for grant of a caste certificate on the ground that the petitioners are not the original resident of Uttarakhand and that they originally hail from Fatehpur, which is in the State of Uttar Pradesh. 5. In Writ Petition No.210 of 2010 (M/S), the petitioner contends that he was born in Haridwar and is residing in District Haridwar since then. The petitioner contends that he belongs to the Jat community, which falls under the OBC category in the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner applied and was issued a permanent resident certificate as well as a caste certificate. On this basis, the petitioner applied for the post of Constable and was duly appointed, but subsequently, on a complaint being made, the matter was examined by the scrutiny committee, which found that the petitioner was not an original resident of Uttarakhand and, consequently, cancelled the caste certificate issued to the petitioner by an order of 28th May, 2009. 6. In Writ Petition No.1948 of 2010 (M/S), the petitioners contend that they belong to the Jat community, which has been declared as an OBC in the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioners contend that their fathers are serving in Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd., Ranipur, District Haridwar since 1977 and the petitioners are residing in the District Haridwar since then. 6. In Writ Petition No.1948 of 2010 (M/S), the petitioners contend that they belong to the Jat community, which has been declared as an OBC in the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioners contend that their fathers are serving in Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd., Ranipur, District Haridwar since 1977 and the petitioners are residing in the District Haridwar since then. Upon the creation of the State of Uttarakhand, the petitioners applied for a caste certificate which was issued by the Tehsildar in the year 2004 indicating that the petitioners belong to the Jat community, which is in the OBC category. Fresh application was filed for issuing a caste certificate, which was not being considered on the ground that the petitioners are not the original resident of Uttarakhand in as much as their grandfather and great grandfather were residents of Muzafarnagar, which is in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Consequently, the writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to issue a caste certificate in favour of the petitioners. 7. In Writ Petition No.2006 of 2010 (M/S), the petitioner contends that his father is residing in District Haridwar since 1985 and that the petitioner was born in the year 1986 in District Haridwar and completed his education in District Haridwar. The petitioner contends that he belongs to the backward caste and is entitled for a caste certificate. The petitioner applied for a caste certificate, which has been rejected by an order dated 23rd August, 2010 by the Tehsildar on the ground that the petitioner’s father / grandfather are not the original resident of Uttarakhand. 8. In Writ Petition No.2045 of 2010 (M/S), the petitioner contends that he is an ‘Aheer’ by caste, which comes under the OBC category and is entitled for a caste certificate. The petitioner contends that he was born in District Haridwar in the year 1983 and had done his schooling from District Haridwar. The petitioner was issued a permanent resident certificate in the year 2002 upon the creation of the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner contends that he was born in District Haridwar in the year 1983 and had done his schooling from District Haridwar. The petitioner was issued a permanent resident certificate in the year 2002 upon the creation of the State of Uttarakhand. For the purpose of getting admission in a Master’s Degree Programme, the petitioner applied for a caste certificate, which has been rejected by the Tehsildar on the ground that even though, the petitioner is residing in District Haridwar since 05th August, 1996 nonetheless the petitioner is the original resident of Tehsil Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar in Uttar Pradesh and therefore not entitled for a caste certificate. 9. In Writ Petition No.2214 of 2010 (M/S), the petitioner contends that he was born in District Haridwar and, since then, has been brought up in District Haridwar. A permanent resident certificate dated 01.01.2005 was issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The petitioner has a voter identity card from District Haridwar and applied for a scheduled caste certificate. The petitioner contends that earlier in the composite State of Uttar Pradesh, the Tehsildar, Roorkee had issued a caste certificate showing the caste of the petitioner as ‘Chamaar’, which is also notified as the Scheduled Caste in the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner applied for a fresh caste certificate, which was rejected by the impugned order dated 20.05.2010 on the ground that the petitioner is not an original resident of Uttarakhand. 10. In Writ Petition No.2255 of 2010 (M/S), the petitioner contends that she was born in 1981 in District Haridwar, but, did her schooling from Muzaffarnagar, U.P. where her father was working. The petitioner belongs to a “Chamaar” caste, which is notified as a Scheduled Caste in the State of Uttar Pradesh as well as in the State of Uttarakhand. In the year 1993, the petitioner got married and started living with her husband in District Haridwar. The petitioner contends that her husband also belongs to a Chamaar caste and is living in Uttarakhand since his birth and did his schooling and other education from Uttarakhand. The petitioner applied for a caste certificate, which was rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner is not an original resident of Uttarakhand. 11. In Writ Petition No.138 of 2011 (M/S), the petitioner contends that he is a “Nai” by caste, which comes under the OBC category in the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner applied for a caste certificate, which was rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner is not an original resident of Uttarakhand. 11. In Writ Petition No.138 of 2011 (M/S), the petitioner contends that he is a “Nai” by caste, which comes under the OBC category in the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner is residing in the State of Uttarakhand since long and has been issued a permanent resident certificate on the basis of which the petitioner applied for a caste certificate, which was rejected by the authority on the ground that the petitioner is not an original resident of Uttarakhand and that he is the resident of District Muzaffarnagar in Uttar Pradesh. 12. In Writ Petition No.208 of 2011 (M/S), the petitioner contends that her father started residing in District Dehradun since 1963. The petitioner was born in District Dehradun and completed her education from Dehradun. A permanent resident certificate was issued by the authority on 07.08.2001 and a caste certificate was also issued on 17.08.2001 indicating that the petitioner belongs to the OBC category. The petitioner applied for a fresh caste certificate, which was rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not an original resident of Uttarakhand. 13. In Writ Petition No.214 of 2011 (M/S), the petitioners contend that their fathers have been residing in Pant Nagar, District Udham Singh Nagar since 1983. The petitioners were born in Pant Nagar and have done their education from there. The petitioners belong to the OBC category. The petitioners applied for a caste certificate, which has been rejected by the authority on the ground that the petitioners are not the original resident of Uttarakhand and that the petitioners are the original resident of District Kushinagar in Uttar Pradesh. 14. In Writ Petition No.923 of 2011 (M/S), the petitioner contends that his father is working in the Uttarakhand Power Corporation since 1978 and that the petitioner’s father has been allocated the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner did his studies from Roorkee, District Haridwar. On 08th March 2000, a caste certificate was issued by the Tehsildar indicating that the petitioner belongs to Saini caste, which comes under the OBC category. The Tehsildar, Roorkee has issued another caste certificate on 01.04.2004 indicating that the petitioner belongs to Saini caste in O.B.C. category. In 2007, the Sub Divisional Magistrate issued a permanent resident certificate to the petitioner. The Tehsildar, Roorkee has issued another caste certificate on 01.04.2004 indicating that the petitioner belongs to Saini caste in O.B.C. category. In 2007, the Sub Divisional Magistrate issued a permanent resident certificate to the petitioner. The petitioner applied for a caste certificate, which has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not an original resident of Uttarakhand and that he is the original resident of District Sahranpur, Uttar Pradesh. 15. In Writ Petition No.1138 of 2011 (M/S), the petitioner contends that her father settled in District Haridwar in the year 1991. The petitioner belongs to the Jat community, which is notified as an OBC category in the State of Uttar Pradesh as well as in the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner was born in the year 1993 in District Haridwar and did her entire schooling in District Haridwar. The petitioner applied for a caste certificate, which was rejected by the authority on the ground that the petitioner is not an original resident of Uttarakhand and that she is an original resident of Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh. 16. The State respondents in their counter affidavit have basically contended that the writ petitioners cannot be given a caste certificate since they are not the original resident of Uttarakhand and consequently, as per the Circulars / Government Orders issued by the State of Uttarakhand, the petitioners are not entitled for the issuance of a caste certificate. In support of their contentions, the petitioners as well as the respondents have relied upon various judgments, which will be dealt with hereinafter. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of their case, have relied upon the decisions in Jyoti Bala Vs. State of Uttarakhand & another 2009 (1) U.D. 1 , Mrs. Jyotsana Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others 2010 (2) U.D. 539, Gulab Singh Vs. Sub District Magistrate, Lohaghat, District Champawat passed in Writ Petition No.1665 of 2008 (M/S), Dharmendra Prasad Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others 2009 (1) U.D. 381 , Neha Saini Vs. State of Uttarakhand & another 2009 (2) U.D. 561 , Rakesh Vs. State of Uttaranchal & others decided on 25.06.2010 in Writ Petition No.1113 of 2008 (S/S), Paras Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others decided on 12.05.2010 in Writ Petition No.1359 of 2009 (M/S), Manoj Kumar Gangwar (minor) Vs. State of Uttarakhand & another 2009 (2) U.D. 561 , Rakesh Vs. State of Uttaranchal & others decided on 25.06.2010 in Writ Petition No.1113 of 2008 (S/S), Paras Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others decided on 12.05.2010 in Writ Petition No.1359 of 2009 (M/S), Manoj Kumar Gangwar (minor) Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others decided on 16th July 2009 in Writ Petition NO.1109 of 2009 (M/S), Monika Rani Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others 2012 (1) U.D. 70 , Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare Vs. State of Maharashtra 2004 (9) SCC 481 and Ms. Manisha Bharti & another Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others 2009 (2) U.D. 227 18. In Jyoti Bala Vs. State of Uttarakhand & another 2009 (1) U.D. 1 , the petitioner was originally a resident of Moradabad District in Uttar Pradesh and after marriage, she settled with her husband in the year 1998 at Kashipur, Uttarakhand. The husband of the petitioner was the original resident of Kashipur. The petitioner applied for selection in the Uttarakhand Judicial Service and was selected, but, later on her appointment was cancelled on the ground that she was not an original resident of Uttarakhand. The petitioner before her marriage belonged to a Scheduled Caste and her husband is also a Scheduled Caste. The petitioner applied for a caste certificate which was rejected on the ground that the petitioner is the original resident of Moradabad in Uttar Pradesh and consequently not entitled for a caste certificate. The Division Bench of this Court, after considering the matter, found that the petitioner’s husband was a permanent resident of Uttarakahnd and that the petitioner acquired her husband’s domicile from the date of her marriage and became a bonafide resident of the State of Uttarakhand. The Division Bench of this Court, in view of the Government Order dated 20.11.2001, held that the petitioner being a bonafide resident was entitled for a grant of a caste certificate and was entitled for appointment as a bonafide resident of Uttarakhand. 19. In Mrs. Jyotsana Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others 2010 (2) U.D. 539, the petitioner applied for the post of Civil Judge (J.D.) as a Scheduled Caste candidate. The petitioner was selected, but subsequently, the State Government did not issue the appointment letter. Accordingly, a writ petition was filed praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to appoint her on the said post. The petitioner was selected, but subsequently, the State Government did not issue the appointment letter. Accordingly, a writ petition was filed praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to appoint her on the said post. The respondents took a stand that the petitioner was not an original resident of Uttarakhand as she was born in District Shahjahanpur in Uttar Pradesh. The court found that the father of the petitioner was allocated the State of Uttarakhand and, therefore, it was not a case of migration. The Division Bench held that on account of the official allocation of the petitioner’s father in the State of Uttarakhand, he acquired the domicile of the State of Uttarakhand and, the petitioner being his daughter automatically acquired the domicile of the State of Uttarakhand and was consequently, entitled for a caste certificate. The Division Bench also noticed that the Government Order wherein it was provided that a caste certificate would be issued to those persons who are residing or born in Uttarakhand. The court accordingly held that since the petitioner was a bonafide resident of Uttarakhand was entitled for appointment on the post in question. 20. In Gulab Singh Vs. Sub District Magistrate, Lohaghat, District Champawat passed in Writ Petition No.1665 of 2008 (M/S) vide judgment dated 10.06.2011, the petitioner’s permanent resident certificate was cancelled in view of the Government Order dated 20th November, 2001 which provided that a person must stay in a district for a period of 15 years and only then he would be eligible for such a certificate. The court repelled the contention of the respondents contending that the condition of 15 years of stay at a place as per the Government Order dated 20.11.2001 was harsh and unreasonable and consequently, directed the authority to issue a permanent resident certificate. 21. In Dharmendra Prasad Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others 2009 (1) U.D. 381 , the petitioner’s father was a resident of Bihar and came to Haridwar in connection with his services. The petitioner was born in Haridwar and started residing in Haridwar and did all his schooling from Haridwar. The petitioner belonged to a Dhanuk caste, which is notified as Scheduled Caste in the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner was born in Haridwar and started residing in Haridwar and did all his schooling from Haridwar. The petitioner belonged to a Dhanuk caste, which is notified as Scheduled Caste in the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner’s application for a caste certificate was rejected on the ground that he is not the original resident of Uttarakhand and that he could be issued a permanent resident certificate on the basis of his stay for 15 years in the State of Uttarakhand. The Division Bench, after considering the matter, held that the expression “original resident” has to be given meaningful as well as purposeful and constructive approach and held that if a person resides for a period of 15 years, he would be deemed to be an original resident. The court further held that the petitioner, having been born in Haridwar which is in the State of Uttarakhand, would also be treated as an original resident of Uttarakhand and, consequently concluded that the petitioner was a bonafide resident and was entitled for a caste certificate. 22. In Neha Saini Vs. State of Uttarakhand & another 2009 (2) U.D. 561 , the petitioner was a member of an OBC community, which was notified in the State of Uttarakhand and married a person outside her caste, who was a permanent resident of the State of Bihar, but, were residing in Delhi. The petitioner applied for a caste certificate from the place where she was born and brought up, i.e., in Roorkee, District Haridwar in Uttarakhand. The application for issuance of the caste certificate was rejected on the ground that the petitioner resides in a different State and that the petitioner was not a domicile of the State of Uttarakhand and was now residing in a different State after getting married and, therefore, was not entitled for a caste certificate. The writ court held that there is nothing like a domicile of Uttarakhand or the domicile of Bihar and that there is one domicile i.e. the domicile of India. The court held that if a person is a citizen of India, then he is a domicile of India. The court further found that merely because the petitioner had married in a higher caste does not disentitle her from obtaining a caste certificate in as much as her caste is determined by her birth. The court held that if a person is a citizen of India, then he is a domicile of India. The court further found that merely because the petitioner had married in a higher caste does not disentitle her from obtaining a caste certificate in as much as her caste is determined by her birth. The court held that the caste certificate is to be issued by the authority in the State where the person claiming such certificate was born and that the denial of the caste certificate to the petitioner by the authority is based on a misconception of the term “domicile”. 23. Similar view was given by the court in Rakesh Vs. State of Uttaranchal & others decided on 25.06.2010 in Writ Petition No.1113 of 2008 (S/S), wherein the caste certificate was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not a “domicile” or a “permanent resident” of Uttarakhand as his ancestors had come from Moradabad, which is in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The court found that there was no logical or plausible reason for the State authority to deny the petitioner to issue the caste certificate, especially, when the petitioner was born and brought up in the State of Uttarakhand and, consequently, directed the authority to issue a caste certificate. 24. In Paras Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others decided on 12.05.2010 in Writ Petition No.1359 of 2009 (M/S), the caste certificate was rejected on the ground that the petitioners were not the domicile of the State of Uttarakhand as per the Government Order dated 22nd June, 2006. It was contended by the State that the petitioners are the original resident of Uttar Pradesh. The court found that the Government Order dated 22nd June, 2006 was not applicable and that the petitioners were entitled for the caste certificate as per the Government Order dated 27th May 2004, which provided that the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, who have been permanently residing in the State of Uttarakhand prior to the creation of the State, would be entitled to reservation and for other relevant facilities and would be treated as original resident (mool niwasi) of the State of Uttarakhand. 25. In Manoj Kumar Gangwar (minor) Vs. 25. In Manoj Kumar Gangwar (minor) Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others decided on 16th July 2009 in Writ Petition NO.1109 of 2009 (M/S), the court while relying upon the decision of Dharmendra Prasad (surpa) held that a person, who has resided in the State of Uttarakhand for 15 years, is entitled for a permanent resident certificate as per the Government Order and therefore would be entitled for a caste certificate as he becomes a domicile of Uttarakhand by choice and, as such, the caste certificate cannot be denied on the ground that he is not an original resident of Uttarakhand. 26. In Monika Rani Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others 2012 (1) U.D. 70 , the petitioner was born in Rishikesh in Dehradun in the year 1981 and did her entire schooling and graduation from Rishikesh. The petitioner’s father was also born in Jwalapur in District Haridwar in the year 1951 and served in a company located in Rishikesh and, after retirement settled in Rishikesh. The petitioner’s father and the petitioner were both permanent resident of Rishikesh. The petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Caste community which is notified in the State of Uttarakhand. In the year 1995, the Tehsildar, Dehradun issued a caste certificate in favour of the petitioner, but, after the creation of the State of Uttarakhand, the petitioner was issued a permanent resident certificate and her application for a caste certificate was rejected 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. The court relying upon the Government Order dated 27th May, 2004 which indicated that those persons who belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and are living in the geographical limits of Uttarakhand on or before 09th November, 2000 would be treated as Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe respectively in the State of Uttarakhand and would be treated as original resident. The court relying upon the said Government Order directed the authority to issue a caste certificate. 27. In Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare Vs. State of Maharashtra 2004 (9) SCC 481 , the appellant was originally a resident of village Sawargaon, Post Pandhurna, District Chhindwara in the State of Madhya Pradesh and belonged to a tribe ‘Halba’, which was recognized as a Scheduled Tribe in the District of Chhindwara in the State of Madhya Pradesh. 27. In Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare Vs. State of Maharashtra 2004 (9) SCC 481 , the appellant was originally a resident of village Sawargaon, Post Pandhurna, District Chhindwara in the State of Madhya Pradesh and belonged to a tribe ‘Halba’, which was recognized as a Scheduled Tribe in the District of Chhindwara in the State of Madhya Pradesh. As a result of reorganization, a part being of Chhindwara went into the State of Maharashtra. The caste ‘halba’ was also recognized as Scheduled Tribe in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner while claiming promotion as Assistant Engineer (Civil) against a reserved vacancy on the basis of a certificate belonging to ‘Halba’ tribe issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh was given promotion, but subsequently, a show cause notice was issued and, thereafter, he was reverted back on the ground that the petitioner was an original resident of Madhya Pradesh and was not entitled to the benefit of reservation by the State of Maharashtra. The High Court dismissed the petition against which a Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court, which was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee, which was formed on the basis of the directions made in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) to re-decide the matter. The Supreme Court further observed :- “5. ………………………………. ……………. It is one thing to say that the expression “in relation to that State” occurring in Article 342 of the Constitution of India should be given an effective or proper meaning so as to exclude the possibility that a tribe which has been included as a Scheduled Tribe in one State after consultation with the Governor for the purpose of the Constitution may not get the same benefit in another State whose Governor has not been consulted; but it is another thing to say that when an area is dominated by members of the same tribe belonging to the same region which has been bifurcated, the members would not continue to get the same benefit when the said tribe is recognized in both the States. In other words, the question that is required to be posed and answered would be as to whether the members of a Scheduled Tribe belonging to one region would continue to get the same benefits despite bifurcation thereof in terms of the States Reorganisation Act. In other words, the question that is required to be posed and answered would be as to whether the members of a Scheduled Tribe belonging to one region would continue to get the same benefits despite bifurcation thereof in terms of the States Reorganisation Act. With a view to find out as to whether any particular area of the country was required to be given protection is a matter which requires detailed investigation having regard to the fact that both Pandhurna in the district of Chhindwara and a part of the area of Chandrapur at one point of time belonged to the same region and under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 as it originally stood the tribe Halba/Halbi of that region may be given the same protection. In a case of this nature the degree of disadvantages of various elements which constitute the input for specification may not be totally different and the State of Maharashtra even after reorganisation might have agreed for inclusion of the said tribe Halba/Halbi as a Scheduled tribe in the State of Maharashtra having regard to the said fact in mind.” 28. In Ms. Manisha Bharti & another Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others 2009 (2) U.D. 227 , the petitioners belong to a Scheduled Caste community which was notified in the State of Uttar Pradesh and was also notified in the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioners’ father was appointed as a Technician in a Government Hospital, Mussoorie in 1989. The petitioners were born in Mussoorie. Prior to joining, the petitioners’ father was a resident of District Basti in Uttar Pradesh. The petitioners’ admission in the medical college were cancelled on the ground that the caste certificates were forged and fabricated in as much as the petitioners were not the original resident of Uttarakhand. The court, after considering all aspects of the matter, held that a liberal and pragmatic approach should be adopted rather than a technical and a rigid one. The petitioners were residing in Mussoorie in Uttarakhand for the last 15 years and, therefore, the petitioners were original residents of Uttarakhand and were liable to be given a caste certificate. The court, consequently held that the cancellation of the admission in the medical college was erroneous. 29. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General has relied upon certain decisions of the Supreme Court, namely, Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao Vs. The court, consequently held that the cancellation of the admission in the medical college was erroneous. 29. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General has relied upon certain decisions of the Supreme Court, namely, Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao Vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College 1990 (3) SCC 130 , Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra & another 1994 (5) SCC 244 , Kumari Madhuri Patil & another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development & others 1994 (6) SCC 241 and U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad Vs. Sanjay Kumar Singh 2003 (7) SCC 657 . 30. In Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao Vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College 1990 (3) SCC 130 , the petitioner was born in the State of Andhra Pradesh and belonged to Gouda community, popularly known as 'Goudi' which is specified as Scheduled Tribe in that State. His father had obtained a Scheduled Tribe certificate from the Tehsildar on the basis whereof he secured employment in the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribes in the Government of India and was posted in Bombay, State of Maharashtra. The petitioner was then aged about 9 years. He pursued his studies in Bombay. For the purpose of obtaining admission in a college, the petitioner claimed the benefit of reservation as one belonging to the Scheduled Tribe community. The petitioner was denied admission. When the matter came up before the Court, it was held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefits and privileges of his community in the State of his origin and that he continues to reap the benefits and privileges in that State alone and was not entitled to any privileges of that caste in the State in which he migrated. The aforesaid finding was given upon interpreting the expression “in relation to that State” referred in Article 341 & 342 of the Constitution of India. 31. In Action Committee (supra), the Supreme Court held that a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe notified in one State may not be given the benefit in another State having regard to the expression “in relation to that State” as specified in Clause (1) of Article 341 & 342 of the Constitution of India. 31. In Action Committee (supra), the Supreme Court held that a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe notified in one State may not be given the benefit in another State having regard to the expression “in relation to that State” as specified in Clause (1) of Article 341 & 342 of the Constitution of India. The court held that the caste or tribes have to be specified in relation to a given State or a Union Territory which means that a given caste or a tribe can be a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe only in relation to the State or Union Territory for which it was specified. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that if a particular caste is specified in a particular State, the person can only get the benefit and privileges available to that caste in that particular State and, even though, that caste is also notified in another State, the person will not be able to get the benefit and privileges of that caste in another State. The Supreme Court further made an exception that the person belonging to the original State may be entitled to the benefits and privileges of another State provided the person is shown to be a permanent resident of the State of Maharashtra on 10.08.1950 in the case of Scheduled Castes and 06.09.1950 in the case of Scheduled Tribes. These are the dates on which the President first promulgated the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 and the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. The Supreme Court, while observing the aforesaid, considered the communication dated 22.03.1977 and 12.02.1981 issued by the Central Government with regard to the issuance of a caste certificate, which would be referred to herein later. 32. In the case in hand, the petitioners had migrated from another State to the State of Maharashtra and, even though, the benefits and privileges were available in the State of Maharashtra as the caste of the petitioners were notified, yet the State of Maharashtra declined to issue the caste certificate on the ground that the petitioners were not entitled to the benefits and privileges accorded by the State of Maharashtra as they were the original resident of another State. The Supreme Court held that in view of the provisions of Clause (1) of Article 341 & 342 of the Constitution of India that the petitioners were only entitled to the benefits and privileges of the caste of their original State in which it was notified. 33. In Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), the petitioner’s grandfather’s caste as shown in the school certificates was shown as “Hindu Koli”. The petitioner applied for a caste certificate as “Mahadeo Koli”, which is notified as a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Maharashtra. The Sub Divisional Officer, Bombay refused to issue a caste certificate informing her that she was not a Scheduled Tribe ‘Mahadeo Koli’. The Supreme Court upheld that the cancellation of a caste certificate on the ground that the petitioner was not a ‘Mahadeo Koli’ and that it was necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval and, consequently, issued several guidelines to be followed by the State authorities for issuance of a caste certificate. 34. Based on the aforesaid directions, the State Government has constituted a Committee, which looks into the matter with regard to the issuance of the caste certificates. In this regard, the State Government has also issued Government Orders with regard to the issuance of a permanent certificate and caste certificate, which will be referred to hereinafter. 35. In Sanjay Kumar Singh (supra), the respondent Sanjay Kumar Singh’s forefathers were residents of Old Ngaulong village of Kohima District in Nagaland and they migrated to Uttar Pradesh and settled down in Allahabad. The respondent claimed the benefit of reservation available to a Scheduled Caste candidate in the U.P. Public Service Commission for Combined State Upper Subordinate Examination. This benefit was denied by the U.P. Public Service Commission on the ground that the ‘Naga’ tribe to which the respondent belongs was not recognized as a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The High Court took a view that there was no bar to extend the benefit and reservation to the Scheduled Tribe candidate of another State. The Supreme Court did not accept the view taken by the High Court and held that the respondent could not be treated as a Scheduled Tribe of the State of Uttar Pradesh and that the respondent could only claim the benefit from the State of Nagaland. 36. The Supreme Court did not accept the view taken by the High Court and held that the respondent could not be treated as a Scheduled Tribe of the State of Uttar Pradesh and that the respondent could only claim the benefit from the State of Nagaland. 36. The respondents have placed reliance on various Circulars issued by the Central Government as well as the Circulars and Government Orders issued by the State of Uttarakhand from time to time. The Government of India noticed that certificate belonging to a particular community was not being strictly issued in accordance with the guidelines on account of the confusion regarding the concept of the term “resident” on the part of the authority concerned. With a view to clarifying the legal position, the Circular dated 22.03.1977 was issued. The Supreme Court in Action Committee’s case (supra) considered the said Circular. It would be appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the judgment of the Supreme Court which is as under:- “6. …………………………………… As required under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, the President has, with respect to every State and Union Territory and where it is State after consultation with the Governor of the concerned State, issued orders notifying various Castes and Tribes as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or Union Territory from time to time. The inter-State area restrictions have been deliberately imposed so that the people belonging to the specific community residing in a specific area, which has been assessed to qualify for the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe status, only benefit from the facilities provided for them. Since the people belonging to the same caste but living in different State/Union Territories may not both be treated to belong to Scheduled Caste/Tribe or vice versa. Thus the residence of a particular person in a particular locality assumes a special significance. This residence has not to be understood in the liberal or ordinary sense of the word. On the other hand it connotes the permanent residence of a person on the date of the notification of the Presidential Order scheduling his caste/tribe in relation to that locality. This residence has not to be understood in the liberal or ordinary sense of the word. On the other hand it connotes the permanent residence of a person on the date of the notification of the Presidential Order scheduling his caste/tribe in relation to that locality. Thus a person who is temporarily away from his permanent place or abode at the time of the notification of the Presidential Order applicable in his case, say for example, to earn a living or seek education, etc., can also be regarded as a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, as the case may be, if his caste/tribe has been specified in that order in relation to his State/Union Territory. But he cannot be treated as such in relation to the place of his temporary residence notwithstanding the fact that the name of his caste/tribe has been scheduled in respect of that area in any Presidential Order." The communication further states that with a view to ensuring the veracity of permanent residence of a person and that of the caste/tribe to which he claims to belong, the Government of India made a special provision in the pro form a prescribed for the issue of such certificates. In order to ensure that competent authorities should alone issue such certificates the Government of India (Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms) by a letter dated 6-8- 1975 indicated the authorities locality-wise who should issue the certificates. The communication then proceeds to add : "Thus the Revenue Authority of one District would not be competent to issue such a certificate in respect of persons belonging to another District. Nor can such an authority of one State/Union Territory issue such certificates in respect of persons whose place of permanent residence at the time of the notification of a particular Residential Order, has been in a different State/Union Territory." This was emphasized because only the revenue authorities of the locality of which the individual is the resident alone would have access to revenue records to be in a position to make reliable enquiries before the issuance of the certificate. In regard to persons born after the date of the notification of the relevant Presidential Order, the communication states that the place of residency for the purpose of acquiring Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe certificate is the place of permanent abode of their parents at the time of the notification of the Presidential Order under which they claim to belong to such a caste/tribe.” 37. The Supreme Court also considered the subsequent letter of the Central Government dated 12.02.1981 in which it was clarified that in order to become eligible for being treated as a Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe in relation to the State of Maharashtra, a person should be a permanent resident of the State of Maharashtra before 10.08.1950 and 06.09.1950 respectively i.e. the date of the notifications issued by the Presidential Order of 1950. 38. By another Government Order dated 06.08.1984, the Central Government clarified that while dealing with the subject of verification of the claim of the candidates belong to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and migrant from other State, the benefit of caste would be available to any candidate or person only from his original or parental State and that no benefit would be granted from that State in which he has migrated on account of the employment or education. The extract of the Government Order dated 06.08.1984 is extracted hereunder:- “The instructions issued in this Ministry’s letter of even number dated the 18.11.1982 will continue. It is however, clarified that the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe person on migration from the State of his origin to another State will not lose his status as Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribes, but he will be entitled in the concessions / benefits admissible to the Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes from the State of his origin and not from the State where he has migrated. All competent authorities may be advised under intimation to this Ministry to issue the Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe certificate on the revised form of certificate henceforth after satisfying themselves of correctness of the certificate after proper verification based on the revenue records / through reliable enquiries. The list of the competent authorities empowered and incorporated in the form may please be followed strictly. No other authority may be authorized to issue the Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe certificates” 39. The list of the competent authorities empowered and incorporated in the form may please be followed strictly. No other authority may be authorized to issue the Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe certificates” 39. By this Government Order, it was observed that the persons who had migrated from one State to another in search of employment or education purposes experienced great difficulty in obtaining caste certificate from the State from which they had migrated. In order to remove this difficulty, earlier Circulars were modified and the prescribed authority of a State was permitted to issue the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe certificate to a person who had migrated from another State on production of a genuine certificate issued by the prescribed authority of the father’s origin. It was also clarified that those persons who had migrated from the State of one origin to some other State for the purpose of education or employment would be deemed to be a Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe of the State of his origin and would only be entitled to derive the benefits from that State and not from that State to which he had migrated. This was reiterated again by a Circular dated 15.10.1987 issued by the Central Government, which reads as follows:- "Further, a Scheduled Caste person, who has migrated from the State of his origin, which is considered to be his ordinary place of residence after the issue of the first Presidential Order, 1950, can get benefit from the State of his origin and not from the State to which he has migrated." 40. Upon the creation of the State of Uttarakhand, the State Government issued a Government Order dated 20.11.2001 making provisions and guidelines for issuance of a permanent resident certificate. The Government observed that a permanent resident certificate would be issued to a person, who is a citizen of India and who is a “bonafide resident” of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) and must have a permanent resident / home in Uttaranchal. It was also provided that a person, who is residing in the State of Uttarakhand for a minimum period of 15 years or a person who is a permanent resident in Uttarakhand, but is living in another State for the purpose of his employment, would also be entitled for a permanent resident certificate. The Government Order also clarified that a permanent home / resident means a parental house in Uttarakhand. The Government Order also clarified that a permanent home / resident means a parental house in Uttarakhand. It was also provided that a person would be deemed to be a bonafide resident of Uttarakhand, who was regularly appointed on a regular post in any Government / Semi Government institution of the State or established under the State Government. 41. The State Government issued a Government Order dated 29.03.2003 providing a format for issuance of a caste certificate. In this Government Order, it was provided that in future, the caste certificate for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Classes would be issued by the District Magistrate, Additional District Magistrate, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsildar of the area where the person resides or was born. The form of caste certificate appended to this Government Order indicates that the candidate “ordinarily” resides in that area / village. 42. Subsequently, a Government Order dated 16th December, 2003 was issued by the Social Welfare Department of the Government of Uttarakhand indicating that a person who is residing in Uttarakhand for the purpose of his employment or education would be entitled to get a caste certificate only from the State of his origin or parental State and would not be entitled for a caste certificate from the State where he is presently residing as a migrant. This Government Order dated 16th December, 2003 was in the lines of the Central Government Circular dated 06th August, 1984. 43. On 16th February 2004, another Government Order was issued by the State of Uttarakhand providing further guidelines for issuance of a caste certificate emphasizing that while issuing a caste certificate, it should be verified that a person claiming a caste certificate must be a resident of Uttarakhand. 44. The State of Uttarakhand has issued another Government Order dated 22.06.2006 issuing certain directions for issuance of a caste certificate after a proper scrutiny and enquiry. This Government Order was issued in the lines of the directions of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). The Government Order indicated that a Scrutiny Committee would be constituted in each district to verify the proceedings after checking of certificate issued for the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Classes certificates. This Government Order was issued in the lines of the directions of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). The Government Order indicated that a Scrutiny Committee would be constituted in each district to verify the proceedings after checking of certificate issued for the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Classes certificates. The Government Order provided that a person who was resident of the area or who was born in the area could apply before the authority and would give an affidavit and such proof relating to his original residence. Such information furnished would then be examined by the authority and, thereafter, a caste certificate would be issued. 45. By another Government Order dated 15.09.2006, it was provided that a caste certificate would be issued in respect of those castes specified in Schedule of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, which are mentioned in the Schedule 5 & 6 of the U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 as well as from the list of backwards classes specified in Schedule 1 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1994). 46. By another Government Order dated 28.02.2007, the State Government provided for Constitution of District Level and State Level Scrutiny Committee for investigating the disputed cases with regard to the issuance of a caste certificate. 47. The State Government has issued another Government Order No.736/xxx(2)2004 dated 27.05.2004 wherein the State Government in paragraph 1 of the Government Order clarified that upon the creation of the State of Uttarakhand, the members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe who are residing permanently in the State of Uttarakhand since before the creation of the State of Uttarakhand would be treated as an original resident of the State of Uttarakhand (Mool Niwasi) and that it would not be justified to consider them as migrants from Uttar Pradesh since the State of Uttaranchal was created as a result of bifurcation of the State of Uttar Pradesh. In paragraph 2 of the Government Order, it was clarified that those Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe persons who are residing permanently in the State of Uttarakhand prior to its creation would be treated as Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe of the State of Uttarakhand. 48. In paragraph 2 of the Government Order, it was clarified that those Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe persons who are residing permanently in the State of Uttarakhand prior to its creation would be treated as Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe of the State of Uttarakhand. 48. In the light of the aforesaid Government Orders, the Advocate General urged that the combined effect of all the Government Orders is, that those who are residing in the State of Uttarakhand upon its creation or even before the creation of the State of Uttarakhand for the purpose of their employment or education and even if their caste is notified in the State of Uttarakhand, can only get the benefit of their caste from the State of their origin or their parental State and not from the State where they have come as a migrant. It was also contended that even by living for 15 years in the State of Uttarakhand, a person would only be entitled to a permanent resident certificate, but, would not be entitled for a caste certificate on the basis that he has stayed for 15 years. It was contended that in order to claim the status of an original resident, the person must indicate that he has been residing in that area on or before the date of the issuance of the Presidential Order of 1950, otherwise, he would not be treated as an original resident of the State of Uttarakhand. 49. The impugned orders indicate that the petitioners are being denied a caste certificate basically on the ground that either the petitioner or the father were not the original resident (Mool Niwasi) of the State of Uttarakhand and that they are the original resident of another State, namely, Uttar Pradesh. The court finds that the words “original resident” (Mool Niwasi) has not been defined or clarified by the State Government. The learned Advocate General has appealed to the court that this position may be clarified by the court itself as it would help the State authorities in streamlining the procedure with regard to the issuance of the caste certificate. 50. In the light of the aforesaid, the court finds that the word “original resident” has been used for the first time in the Government Order dated 26.06.2006. 50. In the light of the aforesaid, the court finds that the word “original resident” has been used for the first time in the Government Order dated 26.06.2006. Prior to this, for issuance of a caste certificate, the State Government in its Government Order dated 29.03.2003 used the words “where the person resides”. The format of the caste certificate so issued by the authorities indicates the words “ordinarily resides”. In the Government Order dated 16.02.2004, the words used are “the person must be a resident of Uttarakhand”. In the Government Order dated 27.05.2004 for issuance of a caste certificate for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, the words used is “residing permanently”. For issuance of a permanent caste certificate, the State Government in its Government Order dated 20.11.2001 has used the words “bonafide resident” and “permanent resident / home”. 51. The court finds that the words “bonafide resident”, “resides”, “ordinarily resides”, “original resident”, “residing permanently” and “permanent resident / home” have been used loosely by the State Government. In some of the impugned orders, the word “domicile” has been used and has also been argued to that effect by the learned Advocate General. Quite obviously, the various Government Orders using different words relating to residence indicates some misconceived notions in the minds of the State Government. What the State Government intends is that a person must be a “permanent resident” of Uttarakhand. 52. The Government Order of 29.03.2003, which was first issued by the State of Uttarakhand for the purpose of issuance of a caste certificate, uses the words “ordinarily residing”. Section 20 of the Representation of People Act, 1950 provides the meaning of the words “ordinarily reside”, namely : “20. Meaning of ordinarily resident: (i) A person shall not be deemed to be ordinarily resident in a constituency on the ground only that he owns or is in possession of a dwelling house therein. (1A) A person absenting himself temporarily from his place of ordinary residence shall not, by reason thereof, cease to be ordinarily resident, therein. Meaning of ordinarily resident: (i) A person shall not be deemed to be ordinarily resident in a constituency on the ground only that he owns or is in possession of a dwelling house therein. (1A) A person absenting himself temporarily from his place of ordinary residence shall not, by reason thereof, cease to be ordinarily resident, therein. (1B) A member of Parliament or the Legislature of a State shall not during the term of his office cease to be ordinarily resident in the constituency in the electoral roll of which he is registered as an elector at the time of his election as such member, by reason of his absence from that constituency in connection with his duties as such member. (2) A person who is a patient in any establishment maintained wholly or mainly for the reception and treatment of persons suffering from mental illness or mental defectiveness, or who is detained in prison or other legal custody or any place, shall not by reason thereof be deemed to be ordinarily resident therein. (3) Any person having a service qualification shall be deemed to be ordinarily resident on any date in the constituency in which, but for his having such service qualification, he would have been ordinarily resident on that date. (4) Any person holding any office in India declared by the President in consultation with the Election Commission to be an office to which the provisions of this subsection apply, shall be deemed to be ordinarily resident on any date in the constituency in which, but for the holding of any such office he would have been ordinarily resident on that date. (5) The statement of any such person as is referred to in Sub-section (3) or Sub-section (4) made in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner, that but for his having the service qualification or but for his holding any such office as is referred to in Sub-section (4) he would have been ordinarily resident in a specified place on any date shall in the absence of the evidence to the contrary be accepted as correct. (6) The wife of any such person as it referred to in Sub-section (3) or Sub-section (4) shall, if she be ordinarily residing with such person be deemed to be ordinarily resident in the constituency specified by such person under Sub-section (5). (6) The wife of any such person as it referred to in Sub-section (3) or Sub-section (4) shall, if she be ordinarily residing with such person be deemed to be ordinarily resident in the constituency specified by such person under Sub-section (5). (7) If in any case a question arises as to whether person is ordinarily resident at any relevant time, the question shall be determined with reference to all the facts of the case and to such rules as may be made in this behalf by the Central Government in consultation with the Election Commissioner. (8) In Sub-sections (3) and (5) "service qualification means- (a) being a member of the armed forces of the Union; or (b) being a member of a force to which the provisions of the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950) have been made applicable whether with or without modifications; or (c) being a member of an armed police force of a State who is servicing out side that State; or (d) being a person who is employed under the Government of India in a post outside India.” 53. The aforesaid provision has been explained by the Supreme Court in Union of India & others Vs. Dudh Nath Prasad 2000 (2) SCC 20 wherein it was held :- “13. Section 20 which is part of the law enacted for purpose of election to Parliament or State Legislature contemplates many categories of persons including those who are in service. It lays down as to when they would be treated to be ordinarily residing in a particular constituency. Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (1A) of Section 20 are couched in a negative language. Sub-section (1) of Section 20 provides that if a person holds or is in possession of a dwelling house in a particular constituency, he would not, merely on that ground, be deemed to be "ordinarily resident" in that constitutency. Sub-section (1A) provides that temporary absence of a person from the place of his "ordinary residence," would be ineffective and a person would not cease to be an "ordinary resident" in that constituency merely for that reason. Sub-section (1A) provides that temporary absence of a person from the place of his "ordinary residence," would be ineffective and a person would not cease to be an "ordinary resident" in that constituency merely for that reason. Thus, in determining the question whether person was ordinarily residing in a particular constituency, the factors mentioned in Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (1A) of Section 20 alone would not be determinative of the status and the question would have to be determined on a consideration of all other relevant factors. This is also clear from a reading of Sub-section (7) of Section 20 which lays down that if a question arises as to whether a person was ordinarily residing in any constituency at the relevant time it would be determined with reference to all the facts of the case as also with reference to the Rules that may have been made in that behalf by the Central Govt. in consultation with the Election Commissioner” 54. In the light of the aforesaid in determining the question whether a person “ordinarily residing” in a particular place, the factors mentioned in Section 20 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 is not sufficient and other relevant factors are also required to be considered. The Supreme Court in Dudh Nath Prasad (supra) also considered the meaning of the words “reside” & “residence” and held:- “14. The word "reside" has been defined in the Oxford Dictionary as "dwell permanently or for a considerable time to have once settled or usual abode; to live in or at a particular place." The meaning, therefore, covers not only the place where the person has a permanent residence but also the place where the person has resided for a "considerable time. 15. 15. In Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, the word "reside" has been given the following meaning: “Live dwell, abide, sojourn, stay, remain, lodge; to settle oneself or a thing in a place, to be stationed, to remain or stay, to dwell permanently or continuously, to have a settled abode for a time, to have one's residence or domicile; specifically, to be in residence, to have an abiding place, to be present as an element, to inhere as a quality, to be vested as a right.” In the same Dictionary the word 'residence' has been defined as under: “Personal presence at some place of abode with no present intention of definite and early removal and with purpose to remain for undetermined period, not infrequently, but not necessarily combined with design to stay permanently. Bodily presence and the intention of remaining in a place, to sit down, to settle in a place, to settle, to remain, and is made up of fact and intention, the fact of abode and the intention of remaining, and is a combination of acts and intention. Residence implied something more than mere physical presence and something (sic) than domicile.” 55. The Supreme Court in Dudh Nath Prasad (supra), after considering the meaning of the words “ordinarily residing”, “reside” and “residence” held that the person before he can be said to be “ordinarily residing” at a particular place has to have an intention to stay at that place for a considerable long time and that it would not include a flying visit or a short or casual presence at that place. 56. The Supreme Court also considered the import of the concept of “domicile” in Dudh Nath Prasad (supra) and held that etymologically, the term “residence” and “domicile” carry the same meaning in as much as both refer to the “permanent home”, but under private international law, “domicile” carries a different meaning and that inspite of having a permanent home, a person may have a commercial, a political or forensic domicile. The Supreme Court further held that “domicile” may take many colours, such as, domicile of origin, domicile of choice, domicile by operation of law or domicile of dependence. 57. In Jagir Kaur Vs. Jaswant Singh AIR 1963 SC 1521 , the Supreme Court considered the word “reside” and observed :- “17. …………………………….. The Supreme Court further held that “domicile” may take many colours, such as, domicile of origin, domicile of choice, domicile by operation of law or domicile of dependence. 57. In Jagir Kaur Vs. Jaswant Singh AIR 1963 SC 1521 , the Supreme Court considered the word “reside” and observed :- “17. …………………………….. The said meaning, therefore, takes in both a permanent dwelling as well as a temporary living in a place. It is, therefore, capable of different meanings including domicile in (sic) and the most technical sense and temporary residence. Whichever meaning is given to it one thing is obvious and it is that it does not include a casual stay in, or flying visit to a particular place. In short, the meaning of the word would, in the ultimate analysis depend upon the context and the purpose of a particular statute. In this case the context and purpose of the present statute certainly do not compel the importation of the concept of domicile in its technical sense.” 58. The concept of domicile also denotes the place of living i.e. a permanent residence. The word “domicile” is loosely being used by the State Government in the concept of an issuance of a caste certificate. In Pradeep Jain Vs. Union of India AIR 1984 SC 1420 , the Supreme Court held that on a bare reading of Article 5 of the Constitution of India, it is clear that there is one domicile in the territory of India and that each citizen carries with him or her one single domicile, which is the domicile of India. A person, who is a permanent resident of one State, goes to another State with the intention of residing, does not acquire a new domicile of choice nor his domicile undergoes any change. His domicile remains the same, namely, domicile of India. Consequently, the use and the usage of the term “domicile” by the State authorities in relation to issuance of a caste certificate is a misnomer and what the State Government actually intends is a permanent residence of a person in a State. 59. In the light of the aforesaid, the court is of the opinion that the words “ordinarily resides”, “resides” or “permanent residence”, “permanent home” or “original resident” are words, which in the present context for issuance of a caste certificate relates to a permanent residence. 59. In the light of the aforesaid, the court is of the opinion that the words “ordinarily resides”, “resides” or “permanent residence”, “permanent home” or “original resident” are words, which in the present context for issuance of a caste certificate relates to a permanent residence. In Dudh Nath Prasad (supra), the Supreme Court held that the “permanent resident” means that where a person is staying for all practical purposes in a permanent capacity for a long period of time. The words “original resident” (Mool Niwasi) also connotes the same meaning of a “permanent resident” i.e. a person staying in a place for a considerable long period of time. In Action Committee’s case (supra), the Supreme Court, after considering the Circulars of the Central Government dated 22.03.1977 and 12.02.1981 also found that the term “resident” connotes “permanent resident” of a person. 60. In the light of the aforesaid, the State Government in its Government Order dated 20.11.2001 has indicated as to when a person can be issued a permanent resident certificate. In this Government Order, the State Government has clarified that a person is a permanent resident of the State of Uttarakhand if (i) he is a bonafide resident of Uttarakhand (ii) he has stayed in the State of Uttarakhand for 15 years (iii) he has a parental house in the State of Uttarakhand (iv) the person is appointed on a regular post in government / semi-government, institution of the State or established under the State Government. (v) the employees of the Central or of public sector undertakings of Central Government are working on regular post in Uttarakhand. 61. The State Government in the aforesaid Government Order has clearly indicated that if a person comes within the aforesaid parameters, he would be granted a permanent resident certificate. The Supreme court in Dudh Nath Prasad (supra) has indicated that if a person is “ordinarily residing” in a place is entitled for the issuance of a caste certificate if he has lived for a considerable long period of time, and that he would be treated as a “permanent resident” of the State. The Supreme Court found that the usage of the words “original resident” would mean “permanent resident” in the context of issuance of a caste certificate and cannot mean anything else. 62. The Supreme Court found that the usage of the words “original resident” would mean “permanent resident” in the context of issuance of a caste certificate and cannot mean anything else. 62. The contention of the learned Advocate General that in order to claim the status of an original resident, the person must be residing in that area on or before the date of the issuance of the Presidential Order of 1950 is misconceived and farfetched. The contention of the learned Advocate General that only those persons could be treated as an original resident of Uttarakhand who or their forefathers could prove that they or their forefathers were residing in the geographical limits of Uttarakhand before the date of the issuance of the Presidential Order of 1950 is also misconceived. The judgments in Action Committee (supra) and Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao (supra) were interpreting Article 341 & 342 of the Constitution of India and, while determining the expression “in relation to that State” held that the President has to specify the castes or tribes, as the case may be, in relation to each State or Union Territory for the purpose of the Constitution and, in that light, the Supreme Court held that a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe notified in one State would not be given the benefit in another State having regard to the expression “in relation to that State” as specified in clause (1) of Article 341 & 342 of the Constitution. 63. The Supreme Court while considering Article 341 & 342 of the Constitution considered the Circulars of the Central Government as well as the instructions issued by the State of Maharashtra in which it was indicated that members belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe specified in relation to any other State would not be entitled to the benefits and privileges accorded by the State of Maharashtra unless the person concerned was shown to be a permanent resident of the State of Maharashtra on 10.08.1950 in the case of Scheduled Castes and 06.09.1950 in the case of Scheduled Tribes. These are the dates on which the President first promulgated the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 and the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. 64. These are the dates on which the President first promulgated the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 and the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. 64. In 1994, the composite State of Uttar Pradesh issued the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which provided for reservation in Public Services and posts in favour of persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes of citizens and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 2(b) defines “other backward classes of citizens”, which means backward classes of citizens specified in Schedule I. Schedule I indicates 55 types of Other Backward Classes. Pursuant to the U.P. Reorganization Act 2000, the Act of 1994 also became applicable in the State of Uttarakhand. 65. In furtherance to the aforesaid, Section 9 of the Act of 1994 provides:- “9. Caste certificate. - For the purposes of reservation provided under this Act, caste certificate shall be issued by such authority or officer in such manner and form as the State Government may, by order, provide.” 66. Pursuant to the aforesaid provision, the State Government has issued Government Orders dated 29.03.2003, 16.02.2004, 22.06.2006 and 27.05.2004. 67. Section 24 and 25 of the U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 provides that on and from the appointed day, the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 and the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 shall stand amended as directed in the Fifth and Sixth Schedule to this Act. The appointed day notified as per Section 2(a) of the U.P. Reorganization Act is 09.11.2000 when the Central Government issued a notification in the official Gazette. The Government Order 15.09.2006 issued by the State provides that the caste certificates shall be issued in respect of those castes specified in the Schedule of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as mentioned in Schedule 5 & 6 of the U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 as well as the caste certificate would be issued to those persons which are provided in the list of backward classes specified in Schedule I of the Act of 1994. The decisions in Marri Chandra Shekar Rao (supra) and Action Committee (supra) indicate that a person in order to claim benefits and privileges must show that he was a permanent resident in the State of Maharashtra on or before the date of the promulgation of the Presidential Order i.e. 10.08.1950 in the case of Scheduled Caste and 06.09.1950 in the case of Scheduled Tribe. 68. Taking a clue from the aforesaid, the appointed date of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order of 1950 and the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order of 1950 for the State of Uttarakhand is the date notified by the Central Government in the official Gazette which is 09.11.2000. Consequently, benefits and privileges would be made available to a person who could show that he was residing in a permanent capacity in the geographical limits of Uttarakhand on or before 09.11.2000. 69. The contention of the learned Advocate General that a reserved category candidate would be entitled to the privileges provided by the State Government if he proves to the satisfaction of the authority that he or his forefathers were the original resident of Uttarakhand on or before the date of issuance of the Presidential Order of 1950 is patently erroneous and cannot be accepted. In the instant case, the Presidential Order of 1950 was enforced w.e.f. 09.11.2000. The State of Uttarakhand did not exist in the year 1950 and, was created on 09.11.2000 from which date the Presidential Order became enforceable as amended in Schedule V and VI of the U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 which specifies the list of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes applicable in the State of Uttarakhand. By a Government Order of 22.06.2006, the list of Backward Classes specified in Schedule I of the Act of 1994 is applicable. Consequently, the contention of the State Government that only a person could be treated as an original resident who could prove that he had been residing in the geographical limits of Uttarakhand on or before the issuance of the first Presidential Order of 1950 is patently erroneous. Such concept is not applicable. 70. This leads to another area, which needs to be tackled. Caste certificates are being denied on the ground that the person is not an original resident of Uttarakhand and that he was the original resident of Uttar Pradesh. Such concept is not applicable. 70. This leads to another area, which needs to be tackled. Caste certificates are being denied on the ground that the person is not an original resident of Uttarakhand and that he was the original resident of Uttar Pradesh. In most of the cases, the court finds that the said person or his father belonged to the OBC category and were rightly issued a caste certificate by the State of Uttar Pradesh since that caste was duly notified in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The same caste is also notified in the State of Uttarakhand. The Presidential Order of 1950 for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes specified the castes applicable in the entire composite State of Uttar Pradesh as existing in the year 1950 and did not specify the castes in relation to a particular area or locality in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The decision of the Supreme Court in Action Committee’s case (supra) and Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao (supra) relates to migration of a person from one State to another State and not within a State. Consequently, for example, a person staying in Gorakhpur in the State of Uttar Pradesh and belonging to a reserved category is entitled to the benefits of that reserved category by the State of Uttar Pradesh since his caste is notified in Uttar Pradesh. The said person moves from one corner of the State of Uttar Pradesh to another corner of Uttar Pradesh, lets say, from Gorakhpur to Meerut. He would still be entitled to the benefits provided for that category in as much as the Presidential Order of 1950 provides the privileges for a person in the composite State of Uttar Pradesh. 71. Similarly, if a person from Gorakhpur migrates to Haridwar, which was also in the State of Uttar Pradesh, he would be given the same benefits by the State of Uttar Pradesh. Upon the creation of State of Uttarakhand, Haridwar became part of Uttarakhand. That person having migrated from Gorakhpur to Haridwar 30 years ago would be treated as a “permanent resident” / “original resident” and would be entitled to the same privileges and benefits in the State of Uttarakhand provided the State Government of Uttarakhand has notified the caste in its State. 72. That person having migrated from Gorakhpur to Haridwar 30 years ago would be treated as a “permanent resident” / “original resident” and would be entitled to the same privileges and benefits in the State of Uttarakhand provided the State Government of Uttarakhand has notified the caste in its State. 72. In the light of the aforesaid, a person of Uttar Pradesh who belongs to the reserved category and who migrated from one part of Uttar Pradesh to another part of Uttar Pradesh and enjoyed the privileges of that caste in the State of Uttar Pradesh and who is staying for all practical purposes in a permanent capacity for a considerable period of time will continue to enjoy the same privileges upon the creation of the State of Uttarakhand provided his caste is notified by the State of Uttarakhand. The said person could not be treated to be the original resident of Uttar Pradesh and the State Government of Uttarakhand could not treat this person as “not an original resident of Uttarakhand” or reject his application on the ground that he originally belongs to the State of Uttar Pradesh. 73. This view of the Court is further fortified by the issuance of the Government Order dated 27.05.2004 by the State Government in relation to issuance of a caste certificate for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In this Government Order, it was provided that upon the creation of the State of Uttarakhand, the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who were residing permanently in the State of Uttarakhand since before the creation of the State of Uttarakhand would be treated as an original resident of State of Uttarakhand and that it would not be justified to consider them as migrants from Uttar Pradesh since the State of Uttarakhand was created as a result of the bifurcation of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The same principle can apply for Other Backward Classes of citizens as specified in the Act of 1994. Why such discrimination is being made by the State of Uttarakhand is a mystery? If a privilege is being granted to certain reserved categories, why cannot the State Government grant similar benefits to the remaining reserved categories? The court is unable to fathom this discrepancy being made by the State Government. 74. Why such discrimination is being made by the State of Uttarakhand is a mystery? If a privilege is being granted to certain reserved categories, why cannot the State Government grant similar benefits to the remaining reserved categories? The court is unable to fathom this discrepancy being made by the State Government. 74. Once a caste is specified by the State, the person belonging to that caste is given the privilege in that State and it is immaterial if a particular person migrates from one corner to another corner of the same State. Consequently, when the State of Uttar Pradesh is bifurcated and State of Uttarakhand is created from the composite State of Uttar Pradesh, the geographical limits of the entire State of Uttar Pradesh will be taken into consideration in relation to the State of Uttarakhand, which has been bifurcated from the State of Uttar Pradesh. The geographical limits cannot be confined to those geographical limits, which has come in the State of Uttarakhand. The contention of the learned Advocate General that if a person was residing permanently in the composite State of Uttar Pradesh at Haridwar, he alone would be entitled to be called an original resident after the creation of Uttarakhand since Haridwar now comes in Uttarakhand is erroneous. The court is of the opinion that any person who has migrated from one part of Uttar Pradesh to another part of Uttar Pradesh and was living permanently for a considerable period of time and was enjoying the privileges of that particular caste in the State of Uttar Pradesh and that part has now become a part of Uttarakhand would be treated as a permanent resident of Uttarakhand upon the creation of the State of Uttarakhand and would also be entitled to all the benefits and privileges of that caste provided that caste was also notified in the State of Uttarakhand. 75. In the light of the aforesaid, the following salient points are to be read in the Government Orders issued by the State Government while issuing the caste certificates, namely: (i) The words “resides”, “residence”, “ordinarily resides”, “original resident” (mool niwasi) and “domicile” in relation to the issuance of a caste certificate means “permanent residence” where a person is staying for all practical purposes in a permanent capacity for a considerable long period of time. (ii) “Permanent residence” means and qualifies such persons as per the parameters laid down in the Government Order dated 20.11.2001. (iii) “Permanent resident” would also include a person born in Uttarakhand as per the Government Order dated 29.03.2003. (iv) If after marriage, the wife adopts the permanent residence of her husband which is in the State of Uttarakhand she becomes a bonafide resident of the State of Uttarakhand and is entitled for issuance of a caste certificate in view of the decision of the court in Jyoti Bala (supra). (v) If a person is permanently allocated the State of Uttarakhand pursuant to the U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000, he is treated to be a bonafide resident as well as a permanent resident in view of the decision in Mrs. Jyotsana (supra). (vi) The appointed date of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order of 1950 and the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order of 1950 for the State of Uttarakhand is the date notified by the Central Government in the official Gazette which is 09.11.2000. (vii) Persons belongs to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or OBC residing in a permanent capacity on or before 09.11.2000 in any part of the State of Uttarakhand would be entitled, the benefits and privileges given by the State of Uttarakhand provided the caste of such persons is notified in the State of Uttarakhand. (viii) A person of Uttar Pradesh who belongs to the reserved category and who migrated from one part of Uttar Pradesh to another part of Uttar Pradesh and enjoyed the privileges of that caste in the State of Uttar Pradesh and who is staying for all practical purposes in a permanent capacity for a considerable period of time, will continue to enjoy the same privileges upon the creation of the State of Uttarakhand provided his caste is notified by the State of Uttarakhand. The said person could not be treated to be the original resident of Uttar Pradesh and the State Government of Uttarakhand could not treat this person as “not an original resident of Uttarakhand” or reject his application on the ground that he originally belongs to the State of Uttar Pradesh. (ix) Once a caste is specified by the State, the person belonging to that caste is given the privilege in that State and it is immaterial if a particular person migrates from one corner to another corner of the same State. (ix) Once a caste is specified by the State, the person belonging to that caste is given the privilege in that State and it is immaterial if a particular person migrates from one corner to another corner of the same State. Consequently, when the State of Uttar Pradesh was bifurcated and State of Uttarakhand was created from the composite State of Uttar Pradesh, the geographical limits of the entire State of Uttar Pradesh will be taken into consideration in relation to the State of Uttarakhand, which has been bifurcated from the State of Uttar Pradesh. The geographical limits cannot be confined to those geographical limits, which has come in the State of Uttarakhand. (x) Any person who has migrated from one part of Uttar Pradesh to another part of Uttar Pradesh and was living permanently for a considerable period of time and was enjoying the privileges of that particular caste in the State of Uttar Pradesh and that part has now become a part of Uttarakhand would be treated as a permanent resident of Uttarakhand upon the creation of the State of Uttarakhand and would also be entitled to all the benefits and privileges of that caste provided that caste was also notified in the State of Uttarakhand. (xi) “Original resident” (Mool Niwasi) does not mean that the person or his forefathers must be the “original resident” of the State of Uttarakhand or reside in the geographical limits of Uttarakhand prior to its creation on or before the date of the issuance of the first Presidential Order of 1950. The geographical limits means and includes the geographical limits of the entire State of Uttar Pradesh prior to the creation of the State of Uttarakhand. 76. In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are quashed. The writ petitions are allowed and disposed of with a direction to the State authority to pass a fresh order within four weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of the judgment in the light of the observations made above, which is required to be read in the Government Orders dated 29.03.2003, 16.02.2004 and 22.06.20006. The writ petitions are allowed and disposed of with a direction to the State authority to pass a fresh order within four weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of the judgment in the light of the observations made above, which is required to be read in the Government Orders dated 29.03.2003, 16.02.2004 and 22.06.20006. In order to streamline the procedure for the issuance of the caste certificate, the State Government is also directed to issue a Government Order / Clarification for issuance of a caste certificate in the light of the observations made above within two months from today.