2025:UHC:401 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 09TH JANUARY, 2025 Writ Petition No. 137 of 2025 (M/S) Pankaja Kohli ...Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others …Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Sati, Advocate holding brief of Mr. D.K. Joshi, Advocate Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. M.S. Bisht, Brief Holder. Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J. The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:- “(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the minutes of meeting dated 19.11.2024 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition), whereby a decision has been taken by the scrutiny committee to cancel the caste certificate of the petitioner belonging to scheduled caste category. (ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 29.11.2024 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 3, whereby the District Magistrate, Bageshwar directed the Tehsildar, Bageshwar 2025:UHC:401 2 to cancel the caste certificate of Scheduled Caste issued in favour of the petitioner. (iii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 04.12.2024 (Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 4, whereby the services of the petitioner as Anganwadi Karyakarti of Anganwadi Karyakarti Centre, Badet have been dispensed with. (iv) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Advertisement dated 30.12.2024 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 4, to the effect so far it relates to the petitioner whereby an advertisement has been issued inviting application for various vacant posts of Anganwadi Workers including the post of the Anganwadi Karyakarti of Anganwadi Center Badet, Tehsil Garur, District Bageshwar. (v) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to reinstate the Petitioner on the post of Anganwadi Karyakarti with all consequential benefits. (vi) To issue any such further and/or other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require be also granted in favour of the Petitioner. (vii) To award the cost of petition to the petitioner.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that she is a permanent resident of Village Badet, Tehsil Garur, District Bageshwar. She had applied for caste certificate belonging to the Scheduled Caste and after due verification and examination of the documents, the petitioner was issued Caste Certificate by the Tehsildar, Bageshwar on 26.12.2003. Subsequently, the petitioner 2025:UHC:401 3 applied for the post of Anganwadi Karyakarti at Anganwadi Center Badet, Tehsil Garur, District Bageshwar. She was given appointment to the said post vide order dated 17.01.2011. She joined the post of Anganwadi Karyakarti on 24.01.2011. A complaint was made after a period of more than 13 years alleging that she has wrongly been issued the caste certificate. An enquiry was initiated by the respondent authorities and the matter was placed before the Caste Scrutiny Committee, headed by the District Magistrate, Bageshwar. She submitted her written submission vide letter dated 04.11.2024 and also produced the relevant documents in support of her claim. The Caste Scrutiny Committee vide its minutes of meeting dated 19.11.2024 wrongly and erroneously held that the Caste Certificate issued in her favour appears to be erroneous and illegal. On the decision taken by the Caste Scrutiny Committee with regard to issuance of the caste certificate, the District Magistrate vide his order dated 29.11.2024 directed the Tehsildar, Bageshwar to cancel the Caste Certificate of Scheduled Caste, issued in her favour. Thereafter, vide order dated 04.12.2024, passed by the respondent no.4, her services as Anganwadi Karyakarti of Anganwadi Center 2025:UHC:401 4 Badet, Tehsil Garur, District Bageshwar was terminated in pursuance of the minutes of meeting dated 19.11.2024 and the order dated 29.11.2024, passed by the District Magistrate, Bageshwar. Now, the respondents have issued an advertisement inviting applications for various vacant posts of Anganwadi Workers including the post of Anganwadi Karyakarti of Angnabadi Center Badet, Tehsil Garur, District Bageshwar. 3. Heard Mr. Abhishek Sati, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. D.K. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.S. Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the respondents. 4. Mr. Abhishek Sati, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that by virtue of her marriage, the petitioner belonged to Scheduled Caste and she had a certificate showing that she belonged to Scheduled Caste. The said certificate was issued after due verification of the documents. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Caste Scrutiny Committee is illegal. 5. Mr. M.S. Bisht, learned Brief Holder appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, has contended that marriage cannot change a person’s caste as caste 2025:UHC:401 5 is determined by birth. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was born in Kumaoni Rajput family, which is a forward caste (a caste of Kshatriya). She married with Prakash Chand Kohli, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste. 7. What has to be decided in this case is whether the petitioner has acquired Scheduled Caste status by virtue of her marriage with a person who belonged to Scheduled Caste. 8. The issue involved in the present matter is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Sunita Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others”, (2018) 2 SCC 493. 9. The facts, in short, of the case of “Sunita Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Supra) was that the appellant was born in “Agarwal” family. She married Dr. Veer Singh, who belonged to “Jatav” Community (Scheduled Caste). A caste certificate dated 29.11.1991 was issued by the District Magistrate/ Collector, Bulandshahar certifying the appellant as of Scheduled Caste (Jatav). Based on the academic qualifications and the caste certificate, she was appointed initially as a Post Graduate Teacher (Hindi) vide letter dated 16.12.1993 at Kendriya 2025:UHC:401 6 Vidyalaya No.1, Pathankot, Punjab. During the course of her service, she completed her MEd and served the institution for about 21 years as teacher. A complaint was lodged against the appellant to the effect that she was born in “Agarwal” family (general caste category) and after her marriage with a person of Scheduled Caste, she obtained the caste certificate in question. After making preliminary verification, the jurisdictional officer directed to conduct an enquiry in respect of the caste certificate of the appellant. The Tahsildar vide his order dated 22.06.2013/ 27.6.2013 cancelled the caste certificate of the appellant and asked the appellant to return the caste certificate issued earlier to the appellant. The appeal filed by the appellant against the order of the Tahsildar cancelling her caste certificate and the order of the District Magistrate dismissing her representation was also dismissed by the appellate authority i.e., Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut on 27.12.2014. As a result of cancellation of the caste certificate, an order was passed by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on 18.03.2015 terminating the appellant from the services of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. In this background, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held, 2025:UHC:401 7 “5. There cannot be any dispute that the caste is determined by birth and the caste cannot be changed by marriage with a person of Scheduled Caste. Undoubtedly, the appellant was born in “Agarwal” family, which falls in general category and not in Scheduled Caste. Merely because her husband is belonging to a Scheduled Caste category, the appellant should not have been issued with a caste certificate showing her caste as Scheduled Caste. In that regard, the orders of the authorities as well as the judgment of the High Court cannot be faulted.” 10. Applying the principle of law laid down in Sunita Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others” (Supra), I do not find any illegality in the impugned finding recorded by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. 11. The writ petition consequently fails and shall stand dismissed. ___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. Date: 09.01.2025 JKJ/ Pant