ORDER 1. The present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated 25.8.2015 and 28.7.2015 passed by respondents No.2 and 3 vide Annexures P/1 & P/2 respectively whereby application of the petitioner for grant of Caste status certificate of 'Majhi' Tribe has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this Court that the petitioner is residing at Gwalior and she belongs to a Caste Majhi which is declared as Scheduled Tribe at Srl. No.29 in the list of Scheduled Tribe in the State of M.P.. The father of the petitioner enjoyed the status of Scheduled Tribe and has been issued a permanent certificate of ST 'Majhi' by the Office of the SDO, Gwalior in Case No.886/03-04/B-121 vide Annexure P/4. 3. It was further submitted that the application for issuance of permanent ST status certificate of the petitioner was submitted by the father of the petitioner, which was duly processed and after spot verification of the caste status, a report was forwarded by the Patwari to the Tehsildar concerned wherein it was mentioned that on the basis of the documents available on record, it was found that the caste of the petitioner is 'Majhi' and she is residing at Morar, Gwalior since 1990 in her own house. In support of the aforesaid fact, a copy of the elector's card of the year 1990 was placed on record showing the name of father, grandfather and grandmother of the petitioner. 4. It was further submitted that even if the petitioner's family came from any place in the undivided State of M.P.; in that eventuality, the issuance of Caste Certificate cannot be denied for the reason that the Tribe 'Majhi' is notified S.T. community in the entire area of the States of M.P. and Chhattisgarh. 5. It was further submitted that once a satisfaction had been arrived at by the authority vide Annexure P/4 at the time of issuance of permanent S.T. certificate to the father of the petitioner, her uncle, sister and brother, in that eventuality, the present petitioner is also entitled for obtaining the ST certificate. 7. 5. It was further submitted that once a satisfaction had been arrived at by the authority vide Annexure P/4 at the time of issuance of permanent S.T. certificate to the father of the petitioner, her uncle, sister and brother, in that eventuality, the present petitioner is also entitled for obtaining the ST certificate. 7. It was further submitted that even though the family of the petitioner had migrated from District Sarguja of the erstwhile State of Chhattisgarh, in that case also, the issuance of caste certificate of ST cannot be refused in the light of Clause 8.11(iv) of the Circular dated 13.1.2014 wherein it is mentioned that "as a result of the State reorganization, in relation to persons originally residing in Chhattisgarh State and belonging to Scheduled Tribe, in compliance of the order dated 7.10.2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5664/05 (P.I.L.), Circular No.F/7-13/2004/Aa. Pra./One, dated June 27, 2011, issued by the Department of General Administration to the effect that persons originally belonging to the Chhattisgarh region under undivided Madhya Pradesh, who had permanently settled in the reorganized Madhya Pradesh State before implementation of Madhya Pradesh State Reorganization Act, 2000, and are currently continuously residing in Madhya Pradesh, and whose caste is notified in the list of Scheduled Tribes in both Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh States, shall be issued caste certificates in the same manner as they are issued to persons originally residing in Madhya Pradesh belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes. 8. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, it was prayed that the impugned orders herein deserve to be set aside and the respondent authorities be directed to issue a S.T. certificate of Majhi in favour of the petitioner. 9. Per contra, Shri Jitesh Sharma - Govt. Advocate for the State while placing reliance on the judgment passed by the apex Court in the matter of Madhuri Patil v. Addl. 9. Per contra, Shri Jitesh Sharma - Govt. Advocate for the State while placing reliance on the judgment passed by the apex Court in the matter of Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & Others reported in AIR 1995 SC 94 as well as the Circular dated 5.2.2014 issued by the General Administration Department vide Anneuxre R/1, had opposed the prayer so made by counsel for the petitioner and had submitted that the matter with respect to grant and determination of caste status of a citizen has to be examined by the competent Caste Scrutiny Committee which is constituted in terms of Para 12 of the said judgment, which in the present case, after careful scrutiny of the record by the authority concerned, had rightly rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of Caste status certificate of 'Majhi' Tribe. It was thus submitted that the present petition be dismissed. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. Admittedly, the petitioner was borne in the State of Madhya Pradesh and she had completed her entire education in the State of M.P. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the other side. The question of granting domicile to a person who has been declared as a permanent domicile and resident of State is no more res integra, if one of the the conditions are fullfilled: 1. He/she is born in the State of M.P. 2. He/she had his/her entire education at least for a period of three years prior to determination in the State of M.P. One of his parents has been continuously residing in State of M.P. for 15 years or more and certain other conditions. 12. Herein case as far as the present petitioner is concerned, she undoubtedly gets the status of permanent resident in the State of M.P. by virtue of birth and also by virtue of fact that she had her entire education from State of M.P., which is evident from the certificates of education produced by her alongwith petition. This fact has not been disputed by the State Government. 13. This fact has not been disputed by the State Government. 13. In the case of Kamal Kishore Barapatre v. State of M.P. & Others passed in Writ Petition No.7649 of 2007(S), the Coordinate Bench had considered the question of migration of medical students from the State of Maharashtra to the State of Madhya Pradesh and the matter has been decided after taking note of the judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No.1160/2003 (Neetu Singh v. State of M.P.), decided on 16.9.2003 and Writ Petition No.5143/2005 (Dr. Yamini Khapre v. State of M.P. and others), wherein the matter has been dealt with in the following manner: "16. However, in the present case, the facts are entirely different. 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 "Halba" is declared as Scheduled Caste in both the States and the Tahsildar, Jabalpur had issued caste certificate in her favour in the year 1999 Annexure P-1. 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 fulfils the following condition viz - (i) She is born in the State of Madhya Pradesh and had her entire education right from the beginning to MBBS in the State of Madhya Pradesh; and (ii) her parents are continuously residing in the State of Madhya Pradesh for more than fifteen years. 17. As the petitioner had complied with the conditions for acquiring the status of a permanent domicile and, the caste to which she belongs is declared as Scheduled Tribe in the State of Madhya Pradesh, there is no reason to deny her the benefits of caste certificate." (Emphasis supplied) 14. 17. As the petitioner had complied with the conditions for acquiring the status of a permanent domicile and, the caste to which she belongs is declared as Scheduled Tribe in the State of Madhya Pradesh, there is no reason to deny her the benefits of caste certificate." (Emphasis supplied) 14. Further, relevant extract of the Circular dated 13.1.2014 issued by the GDA reproduced as under: 6(iv) jkT; iquxZBu d¢ QyLo:i ewyr% NÙkhlxढ+ jkT; d¢ fuokljr~ vuqlwfpr tutkfr d¢ O;fä;¨a d¢ lacaèk esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] eè; çns'k [kaMihB Xokfy;j fjV ;kfpdk 5664@05 ¼ih-vkÃ-,y-½ esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 7-10-2006 d¢ ikyu esa lkekU; ç'kklu foÒkx d¢ ifji= Øekad ,Q 7&13@2002@vk-ç-@,d] fnukad 27 twu] 2011 }kjk vfoÒkftr eè; çns'k d¢ varxZr ewyr% NÙkhlxढ+ {ks= ls lacaèk j[kus okys ,sls O;fä t¨ eè; çns'k jkT; iquxZBu vfèkfu;e] 2000 d¢ ykxw g¨us d¢ iwoZ ls iquxZfBr eè; çns'k jkT; d¢ varxZr LFkkà :i ls cl x, gSa v©j orZeku esa fujarj eè; çns'k jkT; esa fuokljr gSa rFkk mudh tkfr eè; çns'k ,oa NÙkhlxढ+ n¨u¨a gh jkT;¨a esa vuqlwfpr tutkfr dh lwph esa vfèklwfpr gSa] d¨ tkfr çek.k i= mlh çdkj tkjh djus dk çkoèkku fd;k x;k gS] ftl çdkj ewyr% eè; çns'k d¢ fuoklh vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr uttkfr;¨a d¢ O;fä;¨a d¨ tkjh fd, tkrs gSaA (v) mä dafMdk 8-11 (iv) esa n'kkZ, x, vuqlwfpr tutkfr d¢ O;fä;¨a d¨ tkfr çek.k i= tkjh djrs le; leLr inkfÒfgr vfèkdkjh çR;sd vkosnd d¢ LFkkà fuokl d¢ lacaèk esa xq.k&n¨"k d¢ vkèkkj ij ijh{k.k djsaA 15. From the aforesaid Clause 6(iv), it is evident that as a result of the State reorganization, in relation to persons originally residing in Chhattisgarh State and belonging to Scheduled Tribe, in compliance of the order dated 7.10.2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5664/05 (P.I.L.), Circular No.F/7-13/2004/Aa. Pra./One, dated June 27, 2011, issued by the Department of General Administration to the effect that persons originally belonging to the Chhattisgarh region under undivided Madhya Pradesh, who had permanently settled in the reorganized Madhya Pradesh State before implementation of Madhya Pradesh State Reorganization Act, 2000, and are currently continuously residing in Madhya Pradesh, and whose caste is notified in the list of Scheduled Tribes in both Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh States, shall be issued caste certificates in the same manner as they are issued to persons originally residing in Madhya Pradesh belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes. Even the family of the petitioner , which migrated from District Sarguja of the erstwhile State of Chhattisgarh, to them the issuance of caste certificate of ST has not been refused. Further, it is not the stand of the State that the petitioner doesn't belong to Majhi Caste rather the ground of rejection of her representation is that she could not produce any record of her ancestors being resident of M.P. prior to 1950. 16. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and on evaluating the same in the backdrop of the principles laid down and followed by this Court in the matters of Neetu Singh (supra) and Dr. Yamini Khapre (supra) as well as the fact of obtaining the Caste status certificates of 'Majhi' Tribe by her uncle, brother and sister by the authority concerned as is evident from pages No.22 to 25 of Annexure P/8, this Court finds that the orders Annexure P/1 and P/2, dated 25.8.2015 and 28.7.2015 whereby application of the petitioner for grant of Caste status certificate of 'Majhi' Tribe has been rejected are per se illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, they are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to re-consider the application of the petitioner for grant of her caste status in light of the aforesaid discussion. 17. With the aforesaid observation, the present petition is allowed and disposed of.