Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 370 (MP)

Vandana Dhakad v. State of M. P.

2014-04-02

B.D.RATHI, S.K.GANGELE

body2014
JUDGMENT : B. D. Rathi :- This petition has been preferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved from the order dated 29-6-2005 Annexure P/1 passed by High Level Committee constituted by the State Government under the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, AIR 1995 SC 94 . 2. Brief facts of the case are that father of the petitioner Shri Om Prakash Dhakad was migrated from the State of Rajasthan to the State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner-Vandna Dhakad has born on 17-1-1975 in Mandsor (State of Madhya Pradesh). Her father was posted as Temporary Sub Inspector in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner and her father belongs to "Dhanuk" caste which is declared as Scheduled Caste in the State of Madhya Pradesh as well as in the State of Rajasthan. Since the petitioner was born in the State of Madhya Pradesh and is continuously residing in the State of Madhya Pradesh since her birth. The caste certificate was issued by the competent authority as Annexure P/3 and also issued by the Sub Divisional Officer and that was cancelled by passing the impugned order Annexure P/l dated 29-6-2005. The impugned order is not in accordance with the law laid down in the case of Neetu Singh vs. State of M. P., W. P. No. 1160 of 2003 decided on 16-9-2003 at Gwalior. 3. In reply, this fact was admitted by the respondents that petitioner has born in the State of Madhya Pradesh, studied and brought up in this State, but her claim of Scheduled Caste flows from her parentage, hence, the petitioners being migrated Scheduled Caste "Dhanuk" which is of its origin in the State of Rajasthan and because father of the petitioner migrated from the State of Rajasthan to the State of Madhya Pradesh, the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of Scheduled Caste in the State of Madhya Pradesh as per various circulars and orders issued by the Union of India from time to time and accordingly the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 4. After taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on behalf of the respondents and on perusal of the impugned order dated 29-6-2005 Annexure P/l, it seems that impugned order has not been passed in accordance with law. 4. After taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on behalf of the respondents and on perusal of the impugned order dated 29-6-2005 Annexure P/l, it seems that impugned order has not been passed in accordance with law. In para 3 of the impugned order it was opined by the Committee that father of the petitioner was permanent resident of State of Rajasthan. He belongs to "Dhanuk" caste which comes under Scheduled Caste category in the State of Madhya Pradesh also, but even then certificate for Scheduled Caste cannot be issued in favour of the petitioner because it is a case of migration. The circular issued by the Government of M. P. No. B.C.-16014-1-82-S.C. and B.C.D-1 dated 6-8-1984 in which in para 2 there is clear direction which reads thus : "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 Tribe but he will be entitled to 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." 5. It was also held by the Committee that in view of the circular issued by the General Administration Department vide letter No. T^-l/tfO.'fo./srT.'Sr. fort^ 1-8-1996 the directions have been given and in para 16 it is clearly mentioned that when a person migrated from one State to another, the caste certificate should be taken from the State from where he came. 6. We are of the considered view that because of admitted fact that the petitioner has born and brought up in this State she has completed her entire education in this State. She has not migrated. Her father came from State of Rajasthan, therefore, the circulars mentioned in the impugned order are not applicable in this case. It is also an admitted fact that "Dhanuk" caste comes under the Scheduled Caste Category in both the States i.e. State of Madhya Pradesh and State of Rajasthan. 7. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Neetu Singh (supra) and also in the case of Dr. Yamini Khapre vs. State of M. P. and others, W. P. No. 5143/2005 decided on 15-11-2006, Bench Gwalior, this petition deserves to be allowed. 8. Yamini Khapre vs. State of M. P. and others, W. P. No. 5143/2005 decided on 15-11-2006, Bench Gwalior, this petition deserves to be allowed. 8. Petitioner is born in the State of Madhya Pradesh. She had her entire education and career in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Her father migrated in Madhya Pradesh before her birth i.e. more than 20-25 years back. The caste "Dhanuk" is declared as Scheduled Caste in both the States and the competent authority had issued caste certificate in her favour in the year 1989 and on 17-5-2002 by SDO Gwalior. Thus, the petitioner in the present case is a bona fide resident of Madhya Pradesh and as has been held by this Court in the case of Neetu Singh (supra), she has acquired the status of permanent domicile in the State of Madhya Pradesh as she futfils the following conditions viz -- (i) she has born in the State of Madhya Pradesh and had her entire education right from the beginning to M.B.B.S. in the State of Madhya Pradesh; and (ii) her parents are continuously residing in the State of Madhya Pradesh for more than 25 years. 9. As the petitioner has complied with the conditions for acquiring the status of a permanent domicile and, the caste to which she belongs is declared as Scheduled Caste in the State of Madhya Pradesh, there is no reason to deny her the benefits of castes certificate. 10. In the result, the findings arrived by the State Level Committee vide its order dated 29-6-2005 Annexure P/1 cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed. Order dated 29-6-2005 Annexure P/1 refusing her the caste certificate is quashed and the respondents are directed to extend all the benefits of Scheduled Caste to the present petitioner. Petition stands allowed with no order as to costs. Petition allowed.