Dameshwar Dutt Petitioner v. State Of Uttarakhand & Others S

Hon'ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher in a Primary School at Astavihi Naveen Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar since 2005. A complaint was made against the petitioner by one Mr. Jainav Juha who is an Advocate at Moradabad, U.P that the permanent residence certificate granted to the petitioner has been given on wrong facts and that the petitioner is not a “permanent resident” of Uttarakhand. Thereafter, the petitioner was given show cause notice dated 04.06.2013 and without considering his reply his “domicile certificate” was cancelled by the S.D.M, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar vide order 22.08.2013 The necessary implication of the cancellation of the domicile certificate would be that it would have adverse consequence in the service of the petitioner as the B.T.C training was given to the petitioner on the basis of domicile certificate of Uttarakhand and thereafter he was also appointed as Primary School teacher, inter-alia, on the ground that he is a permanent resident of Uttarakhand.

2. This Court vide order dated 11.09.2013, stayed the operation and effect of the impugned cancellation order dated 22.08.2013

3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. The respondents have relied upon a certificate/report of the S.D.M, Rudrapur which says that there is no valid proof that petitioner is a resident of Rudrapur, on the basis of this report, the respondents have taken a stand that the petitioner is not resident of Rudrapur.

4. This Court has specifically made a query with the learned Counsel for the respondents/State, Mr. Vinod Tiwari, as to where is the criteria of domicile/residence certificate in government service, no satisfactory reply has been given.

5. In any case, if “residence certificate” is made one of the criterion, this would be a violation of Article 14 and 16(2) of the Constitution of India. Infact this Court in the case of Triveni Chandra Pandey v. State of Uttarakhand 2014 (1) U.D, 16 has already held that making residence a criteria in public employment is in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

6. But here in the present case, in any case, for what purpose a certificate of residence was being taken, is not clear. Petitioner has specifically pleaded that he never claimed reservation of OBC, SC or ST on the basis of domicile certificate, therefore, residence/domicile certificate in Uttarakhand is of no use. Moreover, in the year 2001 the State authorities themselves have issued this certificate to the petitioner relating to the place and in 2004 he was again issued domicile certificate of that place. Petitioner is now married and has three children to feed who are staying in Uttarakhand.

7. Considering all these factors, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 22.08.2013 (Annexure No. 12 to the writ petition), passed by respondent no. 3 is hereby quashed.

8. No order as to costs.