2026:UHC:1293-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY 25TH FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION (M/B) No. 104 2026 Vinod Kumar ….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Vipul Shukla and Sri Shariq Khurshid, learned counsel. Counsel for the respondents : Sri Rahul Verma, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. JUDGMENT : (Per Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.) 1. The present writ petition has been filed praying for various reliefs, which are as follows:- “(i) To issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the ultra vires Government Orders bearing No. 1051/XVII-2/2023-13(08)/2017 dated 31.10.2023 and Government Order bearing No. 1052/XVII- 2/2023-13(08)/2017 dated 31.10.2023, issued by Respondent No. 1 and annexed to the present Writ Petition as Annexure No. P-1 and Annexure No. P-2, respectively, as the same are contrary to and in violation of the binding law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). (ii) To issue a Writ, Order, or Direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the concerned Respondents to verify the caste status of the Petitioner and thereafter issue a caste certificate, strictly in accordance with the binding guidelines and procedure laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra).” 2. The basis for claiming the aforesaid reliefs is the rejection of the Application of the petitioner for grant of the caste certificate by the concerned Tehsildar on the ground that the Application was not accompanied by relevant evidence. 2026:UHC:1293-DB 2 3. As the Application was not rejected on merits, but on the ground that the relevant evidence was not filed, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the larger issues, which are sought to be raised in the instant petition, are only of academic importance and do not arise directly for consideration. Therefore, we refrain from examining the said issues. 4. The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh along with the proper evidence and in the event any such Application is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be considered by the competent authority without being influenced by the fact that the previous Application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of lack of evidence. 5. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. _____________________ MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J. ___________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J. Dt: 25th February, 2026 Rathour PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR Digitally signed by PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=23699ccc2fd40ad81b6fd13323779d9e3 aeb1097d17dbb53d481cabd25946eed, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=1F65499E931DF71CDAF92A40CC6 179B8E010331BA695239171F906FD5C45C4E8, cn=PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR Date: 2026.02.26 16:47:15 +05'30'