REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7721 of 2011
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 25203 of 2008]
ARSHAD JAMIL ....Appellant (s)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. ....Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7722 of 2011
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9209 of 2006]
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7723 of 2011
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8617 of 2006]
JUDGMENT
Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.
1. Leave Granted.
2. By this Judgment and Order, we propose to dispose of three appeals,
arising out of SLP (C) No. 25203 of 2008 filed by the appellant herein
Page 1 of 25
against the order dated 13.8.2008, SLP (C) No. 8617 of 2006 filed by
the State of Uttaranchal against the Judgment and Order dated
23.12.2005 and finally SLP (C) No. 9209 of 2006 filed by the
appellant against the Judgment and Order dated 23.12.2005 passed
by the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital.
3. In SLP (C) No. 25203 of 2008 filed by the appellant, the impugned
Judgment and Order dated 13.8.2008 was challenged, whereby the
High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, praying
for quashing the order passed by the respondent, cancelling the
caste certificate issued to the appellant.
4. SLP (C) No. 8617 of 2006 was filed by the State of Uttaranchal
against the Judgment and Order dated 23.12.2005, whereby the
High Court issued a direction for reinstatement of the Arshad Jamil,
whose service was terminated by an order dated 18.12.2004.
5. SLP (C) No. 9209 of 2006 was filed by the appellant herein,
challenging the Judgment and Order dated 23.12.2005, to the extent
it denies the appellant payment of any salary or allowances for the
period for which he had not actually worked.
Page 2 of 25
6. Since the subject matters involved in these appeals are inter-
connected and similar, all these appeals are being taken up for
consideration together, and therefore, a common Judgment and
Order is being passed.
7. The Uttrakhand Public Service Commission issued an advertisement
in the year 2002 inviting applications for recruitment to the post of
Civil Judge [Junior Division]. In the said advertisement, it was clearly
mentioned that only residents of the State of Uttrakhand would be
entitled to the benefit of reservation under the category of Other
Backward Classes. The said advertisement also carried a proforma
of the caste certificate to be submitted alongwith the application,
wherein it required a certification as to "ordinarily resident" of the
applicant. The appellant, herein, obtained a caste certificate, which
was issued by the Thesildar, Roorkee to the effect the appellant is a
resident of Roorkee and belongs to "Momin Ansari Caste". The said
certificate was dated 29.06.2002.
8. A Memorandum was issued by the Government of Uttrakhand
prescribing the format of the caste certificate which an applicant was
required to submit in case he was seeking an appointment in the
reserved category i.e. SC/ST/OBC. The appellant herein submitted
Page 3 of 25
his application offering his candidature for the post enclosing a caste
certificate issued by the Tehsildar, Roorkee dated 29.06.02 and
appeared in the written examination held for the purpose of
recruitment to the aforesaid post of Civil Judge [Junior Division], and
after being successful in the examination he was called for an
interview on 26.7.2003 under letter dated 26.06.2003. The appellant
was found successful and was selected for the post of Civil Judge
[Junior Division], against a reserved category post meant for other
backward classes, by an appointment order dated 18.9.2003.
9. The appellant was appointed as Civil Judge [Junior Division] on
probation for a period of two years. The aforesaid appointment letter
was issued, subject to the condition that the character, verification
and report of the health examination of the concerned candidate
should be satisfactory for judicial service. After he submitted his
joining report, the appellant was posted as Civil Judge [Junior
Division] at Purola, Utarkashi, Uttrakhand and assumed charge on
22.9.2003.
10.The District Magistrate, Haridwar received a letter issued by the
Secretary, Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal, Haridwar
informing him that a complaint had been received by the
Page 4 of 25
Commission against the appellant herein, wherein it was complained
that Arshad Jamil is a permanent resident of House No. 156,
Janshath House, Ansari Road, District - Muzaffarnagar, and that his
name appeared at Sl No. 862 of part No. 141 of Electoral List of
constituency No. 408 of Muzaffarnagar Legislative Assembly and that
he is a Member of the Muzaffarnagar Bar Association. By the
aforesaid letter sent on 15.09.2003, the District Magistrate was
requested to inform the Commission on priority basis about the
validity of the caste certificate of OBC issued to the appellant on
29.06.2002 so that the Commission could take a decision on the
aforesaid complaint.
11.Pursuant to the aforesaid letter, an inquiry was conducted and the
Tehsildar Roorkee submitted a report dated 09.07.2003, confirming
that Arshad Jamil, son of Jamil Ahmed, resident of 7, Sheikhpuri,
Roorkee, Haridwar has been residing at that place since 1991, and
that he belonged to caste Momin Ansari, which comes in the list of
other backward class in Uttaranchal. In the said report, it was also
stated that it is possible, that prior to his stay in Roorkee he was
staying in Muzaffarnagar. In the said report, it was also stated that
Arshad Jamil was residing in Roorkee for about 12 years since his
Page 5 of 25
name appeared in the Municipality records as tenant. It was also
stated that he was residing in Roorkee from 3.6.1998 to 2003 as a
resident of Old House No. 24 and New Number 7, Sheikhpuri,
Roorkee, Haridwar. It appears that a police report was also
submitted on 8.12.2003, that the appellant has been residing at
Roorkee since 1991.
12.A letter was sent by the District Magistrate dated 9.1.2004 to the
Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Uttaranchal
Government, stating that the jurisdiction to cancel the caste
certificate lies with the State Government and not with him. A show
cause notice was issued to the appellant by the Chief Secretary,
Government of Uttaranchal. Under his letter dated 13.5.2004, it was
alleged that one Shri Abdul Kareem had submitted a complaint by
his letter dated 12.1.2004 alleging that the appellant had succeeded
in getting appointed in the Uttaranchal State Judicial Service on the
basis of a fake caste and residence certificate, at the address of
Sheikhpuri, Roorkee in collusion with the Tehsildar of Roorkee. In
the said letter, it was also mentioned that an inquiry was made by
the District Magistrate, Haridwar, who had informed the State
Government that the appellant was a permanent resident of District
Page 6 of 25
Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh but he had produced a certificate of
Other Backward Classes showing himself to be a permanent resident
of Uttaranchal and therefore, was not entitled to get the benefit of
OBC Caste in Uttarakhand, as he is a permanent resident of Uttar
Pradesh. He was, therefore, asked to show cause as to why his
appointment in the judicial service should not be cancelled for the
aforesaid reason.
13.The appellant submitted his reply as against the aforesaid show
cause notice on 20.7.2004. The contents of the aforesaid reply were
considered but even thereafter another show cause notice appears to
have been issued to the appellant on 18th September, 2004. The
contents of the show cause notices and replies filed were considered
by the State Government. On scrutiny thereof, it was found by the
Government that the appellant was born in District Muzaffarnagar,
UP and that he had also completed his education there. A Ration
Card had been made in his name and in the names of his family
members in District Muzaffarnagar and he completed his law course
being a student from Muzaffarnagar. He also got himself enrolled in
the Muzaffarnagar Bar Association. His name was also entered in the
electoral roll of Muzaffarnagar up to 2007, when his name came to be
Page 7 of 25
deleted from the voters list after his father informed the concerned
authorities that the name of the appellant is to be deleted from the
voters list as he is now residing in Roorkee.
14.Considering the aforesaid facts, it was held that the defense taken in
the replies by the appellant was baseless and that since he was
neither a permanent resident of the State of Uttaranchal nor
belonged to Other Backward Classes of State of Uttarakhand, his
appointment to the post of Civil Judge [Junior Division] was
terminated as per order dated 18.12.2004.
15.Another order came to be issued on 2.3.2005, whereby the Tehsildar
Roorkee, who was the competent authority, cancelled the caste
certificate issued to the appellant on 29.6.2002 on the ground that
after a detailed inquiry it was revealed that the appellant had
obtained the caste certificate by showing himself a resident of
Roorkee in a mischievous manner, while he was actually a
permanent resident of Muzaffarnagar, and thereby he has misused
the said caste certificate.
16.The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the legality and the
validity of the order dated 02.03.2005. The said writ petition was
registered as Writ Petition (Civil) No. 448 of 2005. The aforesaid writ
Page 8 of 25
petition, filed by the appellant, was allowed by the Uttrakhand High
Court by its order dated 6.5.2005, whereby the High Court quashed
the said order on the ground of violation of principles of natural
justice, with liberty to the Tehsildar to issue notice to the appellant
and to give reasonable opportunity to file his objections against the
proposal to cancel the caste certificate.
17.Consequently, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant by
the Tehsildar on 6.6.2005, calling upon him to show cause as to why
the caste certificate issued to him on 29.6.2002 should not be
cancelled, for the reasons stated in the said notice. The appellant
submitted his reply to the aforesaid show cause notice. Thereafter, a
second show cause notice dated 11.8.2005, in continuation of the
notice dated 6.6.2005, was issued to Shri Arshad Jamil. After replies
sent by the appellant, he was also given an opportunity to examine
the documents on record by issuing a letter dated 11.8.2005 which
was sent to his address House No. 7, Opposite Dev Nursing Home,
Roorkee.
18.Despite the aforesaid letter, he did not appear and therefore, a notice
was pasted at the address intimating him to be present to examine
and peruse the relevant documents. As the appellant did not appear
Page 9 of 25
to examine the said documents, the Tehsildar, Roorkee proceeded to
pass an order dated 1.9.2005. In the said order, the Tehsildar held
that after going through the documents relied upon by the objector
and other records available, it is revealed that the objector Arshad
Jamil was originally a resident of Mohalla Khalapar, Muzaffarnagar,
which is established by the fact that his name is mentioned as
against House No. 225 of Serial No. 147 of Part No. 42 of 408
Muzaffarnagar Vidhan Sabha Kshetra Electoral Roll, 1995. From the
Electoral Rolls of 2003, it was also found that a photo identity card of
Arshad Jamil was prepared by the Election Commission of India for
Electoral Roll of Muzaffarnagar Vidhan Sabha, wherein his name
appeared until it was deleted in 2007 on the basis of information
supplied by his father on 27.08.06. His father informed them that his
son was now staying at Roorkee.
19.The other documents filed by the appellant were also considered, by
which it was deduced that the objector had obtained the caste
certificate in question by fraud. In that view of the matter the
Tehsildar, Roorkee held that such caste certificate should not have
been issued to the appellant and therefore, passed an order that the
Page 10 of 25
caste certificate dated 29.6.2002 be cancelled by issuing his order
dated 1.9.2005.
20.Meanwhile, the appellant filed writ petition No. 413 of 2005
challenging the order dated 18.12.2004, terminating his service. He
also filed another writ petition being writ petition no. 408 of 2006
challenging the order of cancellation of his caste certificate. The
High Court considered the writ petition no. 413 of 2005 filed by the
appellant, which was allowed by the High Court by order dated
23.12.2005. By the said order, the High Court directed the
reinstatement of the appellant with continuity of service without any
break, but ordered that the said reinstatement would be without any
salary or allowances for the period for which he had not actually
worked.
21.The writ petition No. 408 of 2006 was taken up for final hearing by
the High Court and by Judgment and Order dated 13.8.2008 the writ
petition was dismissed holding that the appellant cannot get the
benefit of being OBC status in the State of Uttrakhand as he is a
permanent resident of Muzaffarnagar, UP and also that he obtained a
false certificate of being resident of Roorkee, District Haridwar,
Uttrakhand.
Page 11 of 25
22.As against the aforesaid, the two orders passed by the High Court,
three Special Leave Petitions as aforestated came to be filed in this
Court in which notices were issued. The same were listed before us
for hearing and we heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties on the said Special Leave Petitions and by this common
Judgment and Order we are disposing of all these Special Leave
Petitions, after granting leave therein and by giving our reasons.
23.Counsel appearing for the appellant-Arshad Jamil forcefully argued
that the respondent-State did not have any jurisdiction to review the
order granting caste certificate in favour of the appellant. According
to him, after the grant of the aforesaid caste certificate dated
29.6.2002, the matter was once reviewed by the Tehsildar, Roorkee
and in the fresh inquiry also it was found and revealed that the
appellant was ordinarily a resident of Uttarakhand and that he
belongs to Other Backward Classes and therefore no further review
was called for and permissible. According to him, the police also
made a verification wherein it was also established that he has been
residing in Roorkee for a very long time and, therefore, an ordinary
resident of Roorkee. He therefore submitted that the subsequent
review made by the Tehsildar regarding the caste verification was
Page 12 of 25
without jurisdiction. Counsel also submitted before us that there has
been enough cogent evidence on record to justify and prove that the
appellant has been in Roorkee at least from the year 1998, which fact
is proved from the municipal records itself, and the police verification
report also having stated that he has been in Roorkee for about 12
years, the order of cancellation of the caste certificate is illegal and
without jurisdiction. He submitted that the expression "ordinarily
resident" does not bar simultaneous residence at some other place
also, for a person could be at two places at the same time. He also
submitted that the order of cancellation of his caste certificate came
to be passed on the basis of the dictation of the District Magistrate,
which is apparent on the face of the records and, therefore, such an
order which is passed at the behest and dictation of a higher
authority is illegal and irrational. According to the counsel, there is
enough evidence on record like lawyers' identity card issued by
Uttarakhand HC Bar Association, entry of his name in the electoral
roll of Roorkee in the year 2003, the Hibanama and also the
certificate of the landlord showing him as a resident of Roorkee and
the municipal records indicating the residence at Roorkee from 1998
to 2003 which, when collectively read, would support the contention
that the appellant is ordinarily resident of Roorkee and, therefore,
Page 13 of 25
entitled to get a caste certificate of the nature which was issued to
him and, therefore, cancellation of the same by the authority was
illegal and is liable to be set aside.
24.Counsel appearing for the respondent however, while rebutting the
aforesaid contentions, submitted that the documents on record
clearly indicate that the appellant has been a resident of
Muzaffarnagar, UP at least upto 2002 and thereafter, in order to
make himself eligible to apply for a reserved post, he created
documents to indicate that he is an ordinary resident of Roorkee. He
has also drawn our attention to the various documents on record,
including the document which he had submitted to the Bar Council
of India applying for enrolment and the certificate given by the Bar
Council, showing his residence to be at Muzaffarnagar. It was also
submitted by him that the High Court was justified in upholding the
administrative action taken by the respondent State, as judicial
review of such administrative action should and could be exercised
only in a very limited sphere. He submitted that the aforesaid order
of cancellation of the caste certificate was done after an order was
passed by the High Court directing for giving a hearing to the
Page 14 of 25
appellant and that upon giving such reasonable opportunity to the
appellant, his caste certificate was finally cancelled.
25.In the light of the aforesaid submissions of the counsel appearing for
the parties, we have perused the records and also perused the
decisions relied upon by the counsel appearing for the parties.
26.Undisputedly, and as agreed to by the counsel appearing for the
parties during the course of hearing of arguments, if the order
passed by the High Court upholding the cancellation of a caste
certificate is confirmed by this Court, in that event it would not be
necessary to go into the other aspect regarding the issue of legality or
otherwise of the order of termination as also the order regarding
payment of back wages to the appellant. On the other hand, if we
find that the order of the High Court cannot be sustained and that
the caste certificate was issued legally and justifiably, in that event,
not only the order canceling the caste certificate is to be set aside
with a direction to restore the caste certificate to the appellant but at
the same time the order of termination shall also have to be quashed.
Consequently, the question with regard to the claim for payment of
arrear of wages shall have to be considered.
Page 15 of 25
27.Therefore, in our considered opinion, the issue with regard to the
issuance of caste certificate and cancellation thereof, is the crucial
question which goes to the root of the dispute between the parties
and the same requires our consideration at the very initial stage.
28.Our attention was drawn to the advertisement issued by the
respondent-State inviting applications for filling up the post of Civil
Judge [Junior Division]. In the said advertisement it was clearly
mentioned that the candidates who claim reservation by claiming to
belong to Other Backward Classes of Uttarakhand, have to produce a
caste certificate in terms of the format attached thereto. It was
mentioned therein that the candidate who claims to be a member of
the backward classes of Uttarakhand and is ordinarily a resident of
Uttarakhand has to submit a caste certificate in format. The
appellant also while applying for the said post, obtained a caste
certificate which was issued by the Tehsildar on 29.6.2002, which is
under challenge.
29.It is no doubt true that the Tehsildar, Roorkee subsequently also
reiterated his stand that the appellant is a member of the other
backward classes and is also ordinarily a resident of Uttarakhand.
Subsequently, however, the same was cancelled by an order dated
Page 16 of 25
02.03.2005 whereby the Tehsildar, Roorkee, who is the competent
authority, cancelled the caste certificate issued to the appellant on
29.6.2002, on the ground that after a detailed inquiry it was revealed
that the appellant had obtained the caste certificate by showing
himself to be a resident of Roorkee in a mischievous manner, while
he was actually a permanent resident of Muzaffarnagar and has
thereby, misused the said caste certificate. A copy of the said order is
on record. The said order indicates that District Magistrate had
advised cancelling the certificate. The said order also indicates that
the same was cancelled without giving any opportunity to the
appellant. Therefore, a writ petition was filed by the appellant
challenging the legality and the validity of the order dated
02.03.2005. The said writ petition was allowed by the Uttarakhand
High Court by its order dated 06.05.2005, whereby the High Court
quashed the said order on the ground of violation of principles of
natural justice, with liberty to the Tehsildar to issue a notice to the
appellant and to give reasonable opportunity to file his objections
against the proposal to cancel the caste certificate. In view of the
aforesaid order passed by the High Court, the State Government
became empowered to pass a fresh order in the matter of cancellation
of caste certificate, after giving notice to the appellant to show cause
Page 17 of 25
as to why it should not be cancelled. There is no dispute with regard
to the fact that subsequent thereto the appellant has been given
such an opportunity and he had filed replies thereto. The Tehsildar
thereafter passed a reasoned order by referring to the various
documents filed by the parties and giving reasons for his decisions by
relying upon the documents which are on record.
30.The High Court, where the validity of the order passed by the
Tehsildar on 02.03.2005 was challenged, considered the contentions
raised by the appellant, but dismissed the writ petition holding that
the appellant cannot get the benefit of Other Backward Classes
status in the State of Uttarakhand as he is a permanent resident of
Muzaffarnagar, UP. The High Court has also recorded a finding that
the appellant obtained a false certificate of being a resident of
Roorkee, District-Haridwar, Uttarakhand.
31.Although, the power and the jurisdiction of this Court in the matter
of re-appreciation of evidence is restricted and also keeping in mind
the well-settled principles that the scope of judicial review of
administrative action is very restricted and limited and, therefore, we
should be slow in interfering with the finding of facts arrived at by
the High Court, we still looked into the entire records and the
Page 18 of 25
documents relied upon in order to satisfy ourselves that the action
taken by the respondent-State in canceling the certificate of the
appellant is legal, just and proper.
32.On considering the evidence on record and the documents placed
before us we find that the appellant received his education in
Muzaffarnagar except for a period when he studied in Mysore. He
also obtained his Law Degree from Muzaffarnagar Law College.
During the aforesaid period he was a resident of Muzaffarnagar
which is established from the records available with us. The
appellant thereafter obtained his graduation from the Law College at
Muzaffarnagar, and got himself enrolled with the Bar Council of
Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad. He submitted his application on
01.12.1999 and he received the enrolment on 09.03.2000 in which
also his address was shown as 225, Khalapur, District-
Muzaffarnagar, U.P. His name as well as the names of his family
members were included in the ration card which has been made in
District-Muzaffarnagar. The said ration card however came to be
cancelled by the supply office in the year 2001, during card
verification scheme for want of a photograph. Despite his claim that
he was residing in Roorkee, there is no documentary evidence to
Page 19 of 25
prove the said fact except for a document which has been placed on
record, being municipal record, but issued in the year 2003 showing
him as a tenant of Furkan Ahmed in Mohalla Shekhpuri for the
period from 1998 to 2003. But if he was staying in Roorkee from the
year 1998, there was no reason why other documentary evidence is
not available in support of his contention that he was ordinarily a
resident of Roorkee. His name came to be recorded in the electoral
roll of Roorkee in the District-Haridwar only in the year 2003. The
records placed before us show that the name of the appellant was
included in the electoral roll of Muzaffarnagar in the year 1993 on
the basis of door to door survey made by the election commissioner.
Since he was found residing in Muzaffarnagar, his name was
included in the voters list of Muzaffarnagar constituency. His name
finds place in the electoral roll of Muzaffarnagar constituency for the
year 1993, 1995, 1998 and 2003. The voter identity card of the
appellant was also issued to him from the Muzaffarnagar Assembly
constituency showing him to be a resident of House No. 225,
Mohalla-Khalapur, District-Muzaffarnagar, U.P. The name of the
appellant in the aforesaid voter list continued to be there till his
father informed them in the year 2006 that his son is now residing in
Roorkee and, therefore, his name is to be deleted from the voters list.
Page 20 of 25
The appellant submitted his application for being appointed for the
post of Civil Judge [Junior Division] alongwith the cast certificate
issued to him on 29.6.2002. There is no contemporaneous document
prior to the same showing and justifying his claim that he was
ordinarily a resident of Roorkee.
33.Our attention was also drawn to the Section 21 of the
Representation of Peoples Act, 1950 laying down the procedure and
method for the preparation and revision of electoral rolls in a
constituency. Our attention was also drawn to Rule 7 of the
Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 which prove and establish that
an electoral roll is prepared on the basis of enumeration done by the
election staff after making a door to door verification and on the basis
of the information disclosed by the family members and the house
they visit. On the said disclosures made, the name of the appellant
was included in the voters list of Muzaffarnagar upto 2003 and
therefore, it cannot be said that he was not only ordinarily resident of
Muzaffarnagar but a permanent resident thereof.
34.In view of such authentic and sufficient documentary evidence on
record to reject the claim of the appellant that he was an ordinarily
resident of Roorkee, the findings recorded by the Tehsildar, Roorkee
Page 21 of 25
in his order dated 02.03.2005 and also those recorded by the High
Court cannot be sought to be in any manner arbitrary, illegal or
irrational.
35.In the case of Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to
SC and ST in the State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Union of
India
& Anr. reported in (1994) 5 SCC 244 a Constitution Bench of
this Court considered the issue regarding a person belonging to
SC/ST in relation to his original State of which he is a permanent or
ordinary resident. While examining the said issue it was held that
such a person who belongs to SC/ST in one State of which he is a
permanent or ordinary resident cannot deem to belong to SC/ST in
relation to another State on his migration to that State for the
purpose of employment, education, etc. The aforesaid conclusions
were arrived at by the Constitution Bench of this Court after referring
to the Government order wherein the expression "ordinary residence"
came to be explained as residence which is not for the purpose of
service, employment, education, confinement in jail, etc., and in
short it means permanent and not a temporary residence. The
Constitution Bench also referred to Section 20 of the Representation
of Peoples Act, that so far as the Government of India is concerned, it
Page 22 of 25
has firmly held the view that a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe
person who migrates from the State of his origin to another State in
search of employment or for education purposes or the like, cannot
be treated as a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled
Tribe of the State to which he migrates and hence he cannot claim
benefit as such in the latter State.
36.The order which is passed by the Tehsildar whereby he had finally
cancelled the caste certificate of the appellant and which is the
impugned order under challenge in the writ petition, was a detailed
order giving cogent reasons for the decision rendered. The said order
cannot be termed as an order passed by him at anybody's behest or
at the dictation of his superior officer. The aforesaid order was
passed independently exercising his own independent mind and
upon detailed examination of the records. Therefore, the submission
that the same was passed at the dictation of the higher authority or
that the same was passed for extraneous consideration is baseless
and without any merit.
37.The appellant has failed to prove and establish that he is an
ordinary resident of Roorkee in the year 2002 when he made an
application for his appointment to the post of Civil Judge [Junior
Page 23 of 25
Division] and also when he applied for and obtained the caste
certificate. The caste certificate was initially issued to him without
making a proper and detailed inquiry, and the Tehsildar proceeded
on the basis of certain observation of two persons. A caste certificate
is a very important and substantial document and, therefore, while
granting the same a proper inquiry is required to be made by the
Tehsildar which appears to have been not done in the present case,
and the Tehsildar issued the said caste certificate to the appellant in
a perfunctory manner and therefore, the same was cancelled by a
detailed order giving cogent and valid reasons thereof.
38.Consequently, we find no infirmity in the judgment and order dated
13.08.2008, in writ petition no. 408 of 2006 passed by the High
Court, upholding the order of the Tehsildar canceling the caste
certificate of the appellant. The appeal filed by the appellant against
the order dated 13.8.2008 of the High Court fails.
39.Consequently, the appeal filed by the State of Uttarakhand against
the order dated 23.12.2005, passed by the High Court, setting aside
the order of termination of the appellant in writ petition no. 413 of
2004 stands allowed in terms of this order.
Page 24 of 25
40.In view of the aforesaid position, the appeal filed by the appellant
against the order dated 23.12.2005, passed by the High Court in writ
petition no. 413 of 2004, claiming payment of back wages is rendered
infructuous, which is also dismissed in terms of this order.
............................................J
[Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]
............................................J
[Anil R. Dave]
New Delhi,
September 7, 2011.
Page 25 of 25
