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