Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 704 (MP)

Alka Singh v. State of M. P.

2012-07-13

G.D.SAXENA, J.K.MAHESHWARI

body2012
ORDER Maheshwari, J. -- 1. The petitioner has filed this appeal assailing the order dated 27.3.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1873/2011, under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005. 2. The writ petition was filed assailing the order dated 3.3.2011 (Annexure P-1) by which the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Gwalior, District Gwalior has refused to grant permanent caste certificate to petitioner in OBC category i.e. Jaat caste. Further direction has been prayed that the petitioner being of Jaat caste be issued the certificate of OBC category in her favour. Learned Single Judge has observed that the petitioner has switched over from U.P. to M.P. State pursuant to her marriage in 1986. At that time, neither in U.P., nor in M.P. Jaat caste was declared in OBC category. After the marriage, the Jaat caste has been declared in the OBC category in M.P. as well as in the State of U.P. It is said that as per the circular issued by the State Government dated 11.7.2005, if the persons or family migrated from one State to another, they are required to obtain caste certificate from the State of their origin. In reference to various clauses and also the circular of the Home Ministry dated 1.8.1984, it was observed that the petitioner is required to obtain the caste certificate first from the State of her origin. In the light of the said circular it was held that the petitioner is not entitled to get caste certificate in OBC category. It has further been observed that the benefit of reservation was approved to the citizens with a view to give a helping hand to the persons faced the deprivation and difficulties attached to beckward community and the petitioner being non-reserved category candidate prior to marriage cannot be permitted to enjoy the said benefit after marriage. In this respect the Court has relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University [ (1996)3 SCC 545 ], and the judgment of Anjan Kumar v. Union of India [ 2006(3) JLJ 42 = (2006)3 SCC 257 ], and it is held tht refusal to issue caste certificate as directed vide Annexure P-1 is in conformity to the aforesaid circular and also as per the judgments of the apex Court. 3. 3. Shri Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-appellant referring the circular dated 11.7.2005 urged tht clause 3 of the said circular is not applicable in a casae of marriage of a lady from one State to another, in fact, it is applicable in the case of migration. It is further stated that the circular so referred does not deal with the contingency so arrived at in the facts of the present case therefore the findings recorded are un-sustainable in law. It is further contended that the aforementioned judgments of the apex Court relates to a person from non-category to the category person or from forward to backward category. In view of the foregoing, it is urged that the observation so made and the findings so recorded by the learned Single Judge are not based on proper reading of the instructions so issued by the Government, and also of non-application of the said judgments in right perspective, therefore, liable to be set aside. 4. Shri Raghvendra Dixit, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh by reiterating the findings so recorded by the learned Single Judge, referring the Circular dated 11.7.2005 as well as the circular of the Home Department dated 1.8.1984 submitted that the writ Court has rightly dismissed the petition, however, interference is not warranted in this appeal. The refusal of caste certificate by the authority as well as the learned Single Judge is based upon the applicability of clause 3 of the Circular dated 11.7.2005, however, prayed for dismissal of appeal. 5. After hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and on perusal of the record, it is apparent that clause 3 of the Circular dated 11.7.2005 only refers the contingency wherein a person and the family has been migrated from one State to another, and applicable to the contingency so specified in clauses 3.1 to 3.4. The aforesaid instruction does not deal the contingency where a lady after her marriage came from one State to another. It further does not deal with the fact that when the marriage was solemnized, the Jaat community was neither in the State of U.P., nor in the State of M.P., was declared in the OBC category. The aforesaid instruction does not deal the contingency where a lady after her marriage came from one State to another. It further does not deal with the fact that when the marriage was solemnized, the Jaat community was neither in the State of U.P., nor in the State of M.P., was declared in the OBC category. As per the Notification dated 24.1.2002, the Jaat has been included in the OBC in the State of M.P., while in the State of U.P., as per the Notification 10.3.2000. Thus, it is clear that at the time of marriage, the petitioner or her husband was not included in the OBC category, but after marriage it has been included in OBC category in tha year 2000 and 2002 in both the States. Undisputedly, the application seeking appointment was submitted by petitioner in the year 2009-2010. At the time of submitting the application for job, and to get certificate of OBC category the petitioner applied for grant of the caste certificate, on which provisional certificate was issued on 18.2.2009. On submitting an application for grant of permanent certificate, it was refused by the impugned order because the case of the petitioner does not fall within the norms, laid down in the rules, by the authority. In this respect it is required to be observed that the OBC category has been identified for the purpose of extending the benefit of reservation in 1984. The marriage of the petitioner with her husband Dr. Harendra Singh was solemnized in 1986. After marriage the petitioner has prosecuted her higher education and also residing in Madhya Pradesh. Thereafter on issuance of advertisement to fill up the posts within the State of Madhya Pradesh by the local authority, application was submitted by her, and also requested for grant of permanent caste certificate in OBC category. 6. On perusal of the Circular dated 11.7.2005, it is apparent that clause 3 has been enumerated only to those persons and families who migrated from one place to another. In the said context the meaning of the word ‘migrate’ or ‘migration’ is required to be seen. 6. On perusal of the Circular dated 11.7.2005, it is apparent that clause 3 has been enumerated only to those persons and families who migrated from one place to another. In the said context the meaning of the word ‘migrate’ or ‘migration’ is required to be seen. The word ‘migrate’ or ‘migration’ has been defined in various dictionaries, the reference thereof are reproduced as thus : Collins Cobuild English Dictionary : “migrate -- If people migrate, they move from one place to another, especially in order tofind work or to live somewhere for a short time.” Oxford Popular English Dictionary : “migrate -- to leave one place and settle in another.” Black’s Law Dictionary : “migration -- Movement (of people or animals) from one country or region toanother.” Chambers English Hindi Dictionary : “migration – izokl] izolu] izotu( LFkkukarj.k( vfHkxeu] ns’kkarj.k**½ 7. In view of the foregoing, the meaning of word ‘migration’ is clear bywhich the movement of a person or a family from one place to another to find out some work or to live somewhere for a short time. It may further be gathered that if a person or family has moved from one country or region toanother would be treated as migrated. In our considered opinion, in a case where the marriage of a lady has been solemnized from one State to another and she has started to reside in another State, it would not fall within the meaning of migration and will not fall within clause 3, 3.1 to 3.4 of the said circular. Thus, the circular so referred by the competent authority and learned Single Judge is not applicable to the case of marriage of a lady from one State to another and on the basis of the same refusal to grant permanent caste certificate is not permissible. 8. In the facts of the present case, it is clear that the community ‘Jaat’ to whom the petitioner or her husband belongs falls in boththe States in OBC category as per notifications issued by the State Governments in this regard. Indisputably, the notifications were issued after solemnization of marriage of the petitioner i.e. in the year 1986. On the date of inclusion of the ‘Jaat’ community in OBC category, the petitioner was residing in the State of Madhya Pradesh along with her husband who also belongs to the same community. Indisputably, the notifications were issued after solemnization of marriage of the petitioner i.e. in the year 1986. On the date of inclusion of the ‘Jaat’ community in OBC category, the petitioner was residing in the State of Madhya Pradesh along with her husband who also belongs to the same community. She has applied to get employment in the State of Madhya Pradesh in 2009-2010. Thus, while granting permanent caste certificate the competent authorities were required to see the aforesaid factual background in place of relying upon the aforesaid circular which is not applicable. It is also seen that the judgment of Valsamma Paul (supra), deals the contingency wherein the wife prior to marriage was belonging to a forward class and after marriage she has become member of backward class, however, in such circumstances the apex Court observed that the candidate who had the advantageous start in life being born in Forward Caste and later on transplanted in Backward Caste by adoption or marriage or conversion, does not become eligible to the benefit of reservation. Similarly in the case of Anjan Kumar (supra), the Court declined to grant the benefit because the wife belonging to Scheduled Tribe was married with a husband belonging to forward class while in the facts of present case the aforesaid judgments of Hon’ble the apex Court have no application, because the husband and wife both belong to OBC category as per the notification issued by the Government after solemnization of marriage. In the said circumstances, the competent authority of the State of Madhya Pradesh where the petitioner is residing, is empowered to issue caste certificate of OBC category to petitioner being of ‘Jaat’ caste and it cannot be denied in reference to the Circular dated 11.7.2005. It can safely be held that the denial so made by the authorities is not in conformity to law in view of the observations made herein above, however, learned Single Judge has committed error to dismiss the petition by passing the order impugned. 9. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby allowed, the order impugned passed by learned Single Judge is set aside. It is directed that the permanent caste certificate in OBC category shall be issued by the respondents in favour of the petitioner at the earliest. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties to bear their own costs.