logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 Utt HC 022 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Uttarakhand
Case No : WPMS No.634 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ PUROHIT
Parties : Priya Tomar Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Parikshit Saini, learned counsel. For the Respondents: Suyash Pant, learned S.C.
Date of Judgment : 17-03-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Judgment :-

1. Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Mr. Suyash Pant, learned S.C. for the State.

3. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioner challenges the orders dated 06.03.2026 and 07.03.2026, by which the applications filed by the petitioner for issuance of a Permanent Resident Certificate as well as a Caste Certificate under the O.B.C. category, have been rejected.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Village- Jhabiran, Tehsil-Roorkee, District-Haridwar and belongs to the O.B.C. Category and was earlier issued the O.B.C. Category Certificate by the Competent Authority, but the second time when the petitioner made an application for issuance of the O.B.C. Caste Certificate, the same has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is married to a person from the State of Uttar Pradesh, therefore, she is not entitled to get the O.B.C. Caste Certificate.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prima facie the order impugned are incorrect as the caste of a person is determined by the birth of a person and therefore she cannot be denied the certificate only on the ground that she was married to some person from the State of Uttar Pradesh.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to buttress his submission, has relied upon two judgments of this Court, which are quoted as under:-

          1. Neha Saini Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another reported in 2009 SCC Online Utt 989.

          2. Dr. Madhu Arya Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others reported in 2011 SCC Online Utt 436.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner did not annex any documents to suggest that the petitioner is the permanent resident of the State of Uttarakhand.

8. Learned counsel for the State prays for and is granted four weeks' time for filing counter affidavit.

9. List this case on 23.04.2026.

10. In the meantime, provisional permanent resident certificate and provisional caste certificate be issued to the petitioner so that she may apply in the upcoming examinations.

11. Interim Relief Application (IA No.1 of 2026) stands disposed of accordingly.
 
  CDJLawJournal