HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 16041 of 2026 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J. 1. Mr. Antriksh Verma, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client is a minor who seeks to move this Court through his father. Under challenge are orders dated 7th August, 2025 and 22nd January, 2026 passed by respondent no.4 (the Tehsildar) rejecting his applications for issuance of caste certificate. The orders bear no reason. He relies on order dated 13th May, 2025 of co-ordinate Bench disposing of Writ-C no.14919 of 2025 (Mithlesh Kumar (Minor) Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others). There be direction as in paragraph 5 of said order. The paragraph is reproduced below. "5. In light of the above, it is clear that the rejection order is without any basis in law. Accordingly, the impugned rejection order dated April 22, 2025 is quashed and set aside with a direction upon the Tehsildar to reconsider the same in accordance with law. The petitioner may once again provide the documents that may be sought by the Tehsildar. " 2. Mr. K.M. Mishra, learned advocate, Additional Chief Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State. He opposes the writ petition on submission that in spite of earlier rejection order dated 7th August, 2025 there was subsequent application and accordingly again order of rejection dated 22nd January, 2026. Petitioner did not appeal before the district committee against the first rejection. He cannot now seek interference from Court on the second rejection. Mr. Rajesh Tripathi, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent no.2 and submits, his client though made party in Mithlesh Kumar (supra) was not heard. Genuine candidates holding caste certificates are deprived admission because online admission forms are filled up Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Antriksh Verma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rajesh Tripathi Aakriti Turaiha (Minor) .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) asserting scheduled caste/tribe to obtain reservation and then applications for the certificates resulting in rejection. He too opposes the writ petition. 3. On query Mr. Tripathi submits, petitioner has not yet been given admission. Petitioner's conduct does not inspire us to exercise discretion and interfere. He must find available remedy by approaching the district committee. The Vidyalay would do well to require uploading of the certificate in the admission application, instead of just an assertion. 4. With above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. May 6, 2026 Kpy WRIC No. 16041 of 2026 2 (Arindam Sinha,J.) (Satya Veer Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- KAVLESHWAR PRASAD YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad