HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 526 of 2025 (M/S) Madhvi Pundir ….......Petitioner Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others …..... Respondents Present : Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta and Mr. Rafat Munir Ali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mahendra Singh Bisht, Brief Hlder for the State/respondent nos.1 and 3. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in the instant petition is made to the order dated 04.11.2014 of the State Caste Scrutiny Committee, by which, the Caste Certificate of Other Backward Class (“OBC”), issued in favour of the petitioner has been rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. This is the second round of litigation. It is the case of the petitioner that she was married to one Girish Chandra Pundir, who belongs to “Sonar” class, which is an OBC. Accordingly, she was issued OBC Certificate. The petitioner is appointed as a Teacher. Earlier also, on a complaint, the Sub Divisional Magistrate passed an order dated 05.12.2023, which was challenged by the petitioner 2 in WPMS No.65 of 2024 (“the first petition”). The first petition was decided by this Court on 10.05.2024. Despite specific directions of the Court, again the impugned order has been passed by the Committee, which is not empowered to do so. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the limited question that is raised by the petitioner is that the constitution of Caste Scrutiny Committee is not as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, passed in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, (1994)6 SCC 241. He would submit that the Caste Certificate was provided to the petitioner 20 years ago; now, at this stage, it should not be interfered with. 5. On 19.02.2025, when the matter was taken up, the Court observed as follows:- “The caste certificate of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that she was a member of general caste before marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioner raises a question with regard to the procedure that has been adopted for scrutinizing the caste certificate that has been issued to the petitioner. 3 Let petitioner file a short affidavit as to what was her caste prior to marriage? When she was married?” 6. Pursuant to the Court’s direction, a supplementary affidavit is filed by the petitioner and para 2 of it, she writes that, “on 18.11.1979 the petitioner was born in Caste name “Rana” which is an unreserved category for the purpose of reservation in the services.” The petitioner does not belong to OBC by birth. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner also, that OBC status would not be acquired by marriage; one should have it by birth. The petitioner has obtained an OBC Certificate after marriage, which by every means, is a wrong Certificate. The petitioner ought not to have been issued OBC Certificate. 7. Now, the question that has been raised that the Committee for scrutinizing the Caste Certificate has wrongly been constituted. It appears that by one way or the other, the petitioner wants to keep the matter pending. The first petition was decided by this Court on 10.05.2024 and the Court passed the following order:- “(7) Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. However, it shall be open to the Caste Scrutiny 4 Committee to examine the issue of caste status of petitioner, as per law.” 8. This order was challenged by the petitioner in Special Appeal bearing SPA No.184 of 2024, which was disposed of with the directions that the respondents can proceed in accordance with law, as per the judgment and order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). 9. The procedure ensures fairness in any action. In the instant case, it is admitted to the petitioner that she does not belong to OBC, but she has a Certificate. What she is insisting is that though, I am not an OBC person, but my Certificate has wrongly been cancelled. If the petitioner is a Teacher, she should have surrendered the OBC Certificate on the ground that it has wrongly been obtained by her. But, she does not do so. She is repeatedly before the Court on one ground or the other. In such cases, it has to be seen whether just for following the procedure, the matter should be sent back to the duly constituted Committee again. Would not it be a mere formality? 10. In the matter of following the principle of natural justice, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. 5 Sudhir Kumar Singh and others, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 847, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- “42.5 In cases where facts can be stated to be admitted or indisputable, and only one conclusion is possible, the Court does not pass futile orders of setting aside or remand when there is, in fact, no prejudice caused. This conclusion must be drawn by the Court on an appraisal of the facts of a case, and not by the authority who denies natural justice to a person.” 11. Para 42.5 above, is squarely applicable in the instant case. The facts are admitted and undisputed. There is only one conclusion possible, which is that the petitioner does not belong to OBC. It is admitted, as well in the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. The petitioner admits that she does not belong to OBC category. By the impugned order, in fact, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 12. The petition is dismissed in limine. 4. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 03.03.2025 Sanjay