2025:UHC:5605-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSB/82/2016 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. S.K. Nailwal, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondents. 3. Petitioner’s father is a permanent resident of Village Bhowapur Chamrawal, Tehsil & District Haridwar. Petitioner as well as her father were issued caste certificates declaring them to be member of Other Backward Classes of State of Uttarakhand, however, upon petitioner’s marriage, when she applied for caste certificate, the same was denied to her on the ground that she is married to a person in State of Uttar Pradesh. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking the following reliefs:- “I. Issue a writ, order in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 15-2-2016 whereby the applications for issuance of caste certificate and permanent resident certificate has been rejected (Contained as annexure no 9 to this writ petition) II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 & 3 to issue caste certificate OBC and permanent resident certificate to the petitioner treating the petitioner as other backward class person of Uttarakhand and permanent resident of State of Uttarakhand within such time which this Hon'ble Court deem fit. III. Issue a direction to the respondent no 1 to treat the petitioner as OBC and not deny the selection to Homeopath Doctor on the ground that fresh caste 2025:UHC:5605-DB certificate and permanent resident certificate is not submitted. IV. Issue a direction to the respondent no 1 to not fill up the post (Homeopath Medical Officer) in which the petitioner could be appointed till the disposal of the present writ petition.” 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that since caste is determined by birth and not by marriage, therefore, the ground taken for denying caste certificate to petitioner is unsustainable. He relies upon the judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Madhu Arya v. State of Uttarakhand and others, reported in 2011 SCC OnLine Utt 436. Relevant observations made in the said judgment are reproduced below:- “Now since the petitioner is a domicile of India, it matters little whether she presently stays in Uttar Pradesh or Uttarakhand. What is important and what should be examined by the State authorities is that the petitioner was born in a Backward Class which is notified as such in the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner was residing in the State of Uttarakhand prior to her marriage and therefore, she is entitled for caste certificate from the State authorities in the State of Uttarakhand. The next question would be regarding the caste of the petitioner. This certificate can only be granted to the petitioner by the authorities in Uttarakhand. Therefore under law if the petitioner demands such a certificate from the authorities in Uttarakhand, then such a certificate ought to be granted to her. It cannot be denied to her merely because she has now married in a different State or that her husband permanently resides in the State of Uttar Pradesh. For the reasons referred in the preceding paragraphs, the reasoning, not to grant caste certificate to the petitioner, is wholly wrong. The petitioner was liable to get a caste certificate. The order dated 17th January, 2011 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Roorkee, District Hardwar is set aside. He is, therefore, directed to give a caste certificate to the petitioner within fifteen days from the date of service of a copy of this order upon him. While granting the interim order dated 17th February, 2011 to the petitioner, respondents 2025:UHC:5605-DB were directed not to fill up the post in which the petitioner could be appointed. Consequently, it is directed that after the Caste Certificate is produced before respondent No. 3/Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, the Commission shall make appropriate recommendation treating the petitioner to be of that OBC category. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.” 5. Learned State Counsel concedes that the facts of the judgment relied by learned counsel for the petitioner is identical to the facts of the present case. 6. Since the issue is no longer res integra and has been decided by the aforesaid judgment, therefore, present writ petition is also decided in terms of the judgment rendered in the case of Dr. Madhu Arya v. State of Uttarakhand and others. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 02.07.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f 487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819 DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5 , cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.07.10 10:26:05 +05'30'