Vishalmani Raturi Petitioner v. State Of Uttarakhand And Others S

Hon'ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)

1. The Tehsil in which the petitioner presently resides is called Barkot, Uttarkashi, Uttarakhand. In the State of Uttarakhand Other Backward Class (hereinafter referred to as the “OBC”) are the once which are mentioned in the schedule to the Act known as Uttaranchal (Uttar Pradesh Public Service Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994. The said schedule was in existence in the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh prior to 9.11.2000 i.e before a new State of Uttarakhand was created by an Act of Parliament known as Uttar Pradesh Reorganisaton Act, 2000. Subsequent to the appointed day 9.11.2000 the said Act being enacted and is in implementation of State of Uttarakhand and all the castes which were mentioned in the schedule to the said Act were being given status of OBC in the State of Uttarakhand. Vide Government Order dated 31.1.2004 a new caste namely “Rawalta/Jaunpuri Community” was included in the said schedule after entry-82. It is again an admitted case that “Rawalta/Jaunpuri Community” resides in three Tehsils of Uttarakhand namely Barkot, Purola and Mori, which are in Uttarkashi district. The petitioner and his family have been residing in Tehsil Barkot of Uttarkashi since 1970 as they are settled in Uttarkashi between 1965 to 1970 and hence claim that they are residing over there for the last more than 40 years, as a consequence of which they claim to be a member of “Rawalta/Jaunpuri Community”. The authorities, however, refused to grant the OBC certificate to the petitioner on the ground that he does not belong to original “Rawalta/Jaunpuri Community” but he has migrated by other part of Uttarakhand such as Tehri and Uttarkashi and hence he is not liable to be given OBC certificate. The petitioner relied upon a Government Order dated 31.3.2010 wherein the cut off date of migration is fixed 31.1.2004 and since admittedly the petitioner and his forefathers had migrated to Barkot prior to this date they are liable to be given OBC certificate. The Principal Secretary, Uttarakhand however vide its order dated 28.5.2010 had come to the conclusion that there are various practical difficulties with the Government if the cut off date as given in Government Order dated 31.3.2010 and therefore it had cancelled the Government Order dated 31.3.2010 In view of the Government Order dated 28.5.2010 by which the Government Order dated 31.3.2010 was cancelled the authorities have refused to grant the OBC certificate to the petitioner. In other words, what falls for determination for this Court as to whether petitioner belongs to “Rawalta/Jaunpuri Community” and consequently is liable to be given OBC caste certificate.

2. Petitioner in his support of his case has relied upon a report dated 5.6.2004 of Tehsildar, Purola, which was sent to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Purola stating that the petitioner and other similarly situated persons have the same lifestyle and customs as that of “Rawalta/Jaunpuri Community” and therefore liable to be given OBC certificate. The said report dated 5.6.2004 is annexed as Annexure No. 2 (Colly) to the writ petition. He further relied upon second report dated 31.7.2004 of Tehsildar, Barkot which was sent to the District Magistrate, Uttarkashi wherein the same factor was reiterated and it was recommended that the petitioner and the similarly situated persons be treated as “Rawalta/Jaunpuri Community”. The said report dated 31.7.2004 is annexed as Annexure No. 2 (Colly) to the writ petition. Third report dated 14.8.2004 of District Magistrate, Uttarkashi to the Chairman, OBC Commission, Dehradun which says that the dialect, culture and the custom of the petitioner and similarly situated persons is resemblance to that of “Rawalta/Jaunpuri Community” and have recommended that the OBC caste certificate to be granted to the petitioner. Consequently the Chairman, OBC Commission has recommended that the petitioner and the similarly situated persons be treated as member of OBC as they belong to “Rawalta/Jaunpuri Community”.

3. Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State Mr. Paresh Tripathi, on the other hands, contends that there was practical difficulty for the Government to stick to the date off migration i.e 31.1.2004 and that date not being practical the Government Order dated 31.3.2010 was cancelled. Moreover, in the said order dated 28.5.2010 itself, recommendation has been made to the Government to revise cut off date of migration.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner as well as State counsel and more particularly after perusing the documents relied upon by the petitioner in support of his case, it appears that there is already an inquiry done at some level by the Tehsildar and District Magistrate, consequent of which recommendations have been made in favour of the petitioner that he be treated as member of “Rawalta/Jaunpuri Community”. However, this Court feels it proper that in spite of these recommendations in favour of the petitioner, a decision needs to be taken at the highest level of the Government inasmuch as the decision will affect not only the petitioner but also similarly situated persons and they may also affect the other member of OBC. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand to look into this aspect more particularly the opinions of Tehsildar Barkot, Tehsildar Purola as well as District Magistrate, Uttarkashi and Chairman of OBC Commission, Dehradun which are heavily in favour of the petitioner, take a decision thereon if possible after making inquiry at his own level as well. Needful be done as expeditiously as possible.

5. No order as to costs.