Arshad Jamil vs State Of Uttarkhand & Ors

ARSHAD JAMIL ....Appellant (s)

VERSUS

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. ....Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7722 of 2011

[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9209 of 2006]

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7723 of 2011

[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8617 of 2006]

JUDGMENT

Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.

1. Leave Granted.

2. By this Judgment and Order, we propose to dispose of three appeals,

arising out of SLP (C) No. 25203 of 2008 filed by the appellant herein

Page 1 of 25

against the order dated 13.8.2008, SLP (C) No. 8617 of 2006 filed by

the State of Uttaranchal against the Judgment and Order dated

23.12.2005 and finally SLP (C) No. 9209 of 2006 filed by the

appellant against the Judgment and Order dated 23.12.2005 passed

by the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital.

3. In SLP (C) No. 25203 of 2008 filed by the appellant, the impugned

Judgment and Order dated 13.8.2008 was challenged, whereby the

High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, praying

for quashing the order passed by the respondent, cancelling the

caste certificate issued to the appellant.

4. SLP (C) No. 8617 of 2006 was filed by the State of Uttaranchal

against the Judgment and Order dated 23.12.2005, whereby the

High Court issued a direction for reinstatement of the Arshad Jamil,

whose service was terminated by an order dated 18.12.2004.

5. SLP (C) No. 9209 of 2006 was filed by the appellant herein,

challenging the Judgment and Order dated 23.12.2005, to the extent

it denies the appellant payment of any salary or allowances for the

period for which he had not actually worked.

Page 2 of 25 6. Since the subject matters involved in these appeals are inter-

connected and similar, all these appeals are being taken up for

consideration together, and therefore, a common Judgment and

Order is being passed.

7. The Uttrakhand Public Service Commission issued an advertisement

in the year 2002 inviting applications for recruitment to the post of

Civil Judge [Junior Division]. In the said advertisement, it was clearly

mentioned that only residents of the State of Uttrakhand would be

entitled to the benefit of reservation under the category of Other

Backward Classes. The said advertisement also carried a proforma

of the caste certificate to be submitted alongwith the application,

wherein it required a certification as to "ordinarily resident" of the

applicant. The appellant, herein, obtained a caste certificate, which

was issued by the Thesildar, Roorkee to the effect the appellant is a

resident of Roorkee and belongs to "Momin Ansari Caste". The said

certificate was dated 29.06.2002.

8. A Memorandum was issued by the Government of Uttrakhand

prescribing the format of the caste certificate which an applicant was

required to submit in case he was seeking an appointment in the

reserved category i.e. SC/ST/OBC. The appellant herein submitted

Page 3 of 25

his application offering his candidature for the post enclosing a caste

certificate issued by the Tehsildar, Roorkee dated 29.06.02 and

appeared in the written examination held for the purpose of

recruitment to the aforesaid post of Civil Judge [Junior Division], and

after being successful in the examination he was called for an

interview on 26.7.2003 under letter dated 26.06.2003. The appellant

was found successful and was selected for the post of Civil Judge

[Junior Division], against a reserved category post meant for other

backward classes, by an appointment order dated 18.9.2003.

9. The appellant was appointed as Civil Judge [Junior Division] on

probation for a period of two years. The aforesaid appointment letter

was issued, subject to the condition that the character, verification

and report of the health examination of the concerned candidate

should be satisfactory for judicial service. After he submitted his

joining report, the appellant was posted as Civil Judge [Junior

Division] at Purola, Utarkashi, Uttrakhand and assumed charge on

22.9.2003.

10.The District Magistrate, Haridwar received a letter issued by the

Secretary, Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal, Haridwar

informing him that a complaint had been received by the

Page 4 of 25

Commission against the appellant herein, wherein it was complained

that Arshad Jamil is a permanent resident of House No. 156,

Janshath House, Ansari Road, District - Muzaffarnagar, and that his

name appeared at Sl No. 862 of part No. 141 of Electoral List of

constituency No. 408 of Muzaffarnagar Legislative Assembly and that

he is a Member of the Muzaffarnagar Bar Association. By the

aforesaid letter sent on 15.09.2003, the District Magistrate was

requested to inform the Commission on priority basis about the

validity of the caste certificate of OBC issued to the appellant on

29.06.2002 so that the Commission could take a decision on the

aforesaid complaint.

11.Pursuant to the aforesaid letter, an inquiry was conducted and the

Tehsildar Roorkee submitted a report dated 09.07.2003, confirming

that Arshad Jamil, son of Jamil Ahmed, resident of 7, Sheikhpuri,

Roorkee, Haridwar has been residing at that place since 1991, and

that he belonged to caste Momin Ansari, which comes in the list of

other backward class in Uttaranchal. In the said report, it was also

stated that it is possible, that prior to his stay in Roorkee he was

staying in Muzaffarnagar. In the said report, it was also stated that

Arshad Jamil was residing in Roorkee for about 12 years since his

Page 5 of 25

name appeared in the Municipality records as tenant. It was also

stated that he was residing in Roorkee from 3.6.1998 to 2003 as a

resident of Old House No. 24 and New Number 7, Sheikhpuri,

Roorkee, Haridwar. It appears that a police report was also

submitted on 8.12.2003, that the appellant has been residing at

Roorkee since 1991.

12.A letter was sent by the District Magistrate dated 9.1.2004 to the

Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Uttaranchal

Government, stating that the jurisdiction to cancel the caste

certificate lies with the State Government and not with him. A show

cause notice was issued to the appellant by the Chief Secretary,

Government of Uttaranchal. Under his letter dated 13.5.2004, it was

alleged that one Shri Abdul Kareem had submitted a complaint by

his letter dated 12.1.2004 alleging that the appellant had succeeded

in getting appointed in the Uttaranchal State Judicial Service on the

basis of a fake caste and residence certificate, at the address of

Sheikhpuri, Roorkee in collusion with the Tehsildar of Roorkee. In

the said letter, it was also mentioned that an inquiry was made by

the District Magistrate, Haridwar, who had informed the State

Government that the appellant was a permanent resident of District

Page 6 of 25

Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh but he had produced a certificate of

Other Backward Classes showing himself to be a permanent resident

of Uttaranchal and therefore, was not entitled to get the benefit of

OBC Caste in Uttarakhand, as he is a permanent resident of Uttar

Pradesh. He was, therefore, asked to show cause as to why his

appointment in the judicial service should not be cancelled for the

aforesaid reason.

13.The appellant submitted his reply as against the aforesaid show

cause notice on 20.7.2004. The contents of the aforesaid reply were

considered but even thereafter another show cause notice appears to

have been issued to the appellant on 18th September, 2004. The

contents of the show cause notices and replies filed were considered

by the State Government. On scrutiny thereof, it was found by the

Government that the appellant was born in District Muzaffarnagar,

UP and that he had also completed his education there. A Ration

Card had been made in his name and in the names of his family

members in District Muzaffarnagar and he completed his law course

being a student from Muzaffarnagar. He also got himself enrolled in

the Muzaffarnagar Bar Association. His name was also entered in the

electoral roll of Muzaffarnagar up to 2007, when his name came to be

Page 7 of 25

deleted from the voters list after his father informed the concerned

authorities that the name of the appellant is to be deleted from the

voters list as he is now residing in Roorkee.

14.Considering the aforesaid facts, it was held that the defense taken in

the replies by the appellant was baseless and that since he was

neither a permanent resident of the State of Uttaranchal nor

belonged to Other Backward Classes of State of Uttarakhand, his

appointment to the post of Civil Judge [Junior Division] was

terminated as per order dated 18.12.2004.

15.Another order came to be issued on 2.3.2005, whereby the Tehsildar

Roorkee, who was the competent authority, cancelled the caste

certificate issued to the appellant on 29.6.2002 on the ground that

after a detailed inquiry it was revealed that the appellant had

obtained the caste certificate by showing himself a resident of

Roorkee in a mischievous manner, while he was actually a

permanent resident of Muzaffarnagar, and thereby he has misused

the said caste certificate.

16.The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the legality and the

validity of the order dated 02.03.2005. The said writ petition was

registered as Writ Petition (Civil) No. 448 of 2005. The aforesaid writ

Page 8 of 25

petition, filed by the appellant, was allowed by the Uttrakhand High

Court by its order dated 6.5.2005, whereby the High Court quashed

the said order on the ground of violation of principles of natural

justice, with liberty to the Tehsildar to issue notice to the appellant

and to give reasonable opportunity to file his objections against the

proposal to cancel the caste certificate.

17.Consequently, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant by

the Tehsildar on 6.6.2005, calling upon him to show cause as to why

the caste certificate issued to him on 29.6.2002 should not be

cancelled, for the reasons stated in the said notice. The appellant

submitted his reply to the aforesaid show cause notice. Thereafter, a

second show cause notice dated 11.8.2005, in continuation of the

notice dated 6.6.2005, was issued to Shri Arshad Jamil. After replies

sent by the appellant, he was also given an opportunity to examine

the documents on record by issuing a letter dated 11.8.2005 which

was sent to his address House No. 7, Opposite Dev Nursing Home,

Roorkee.

18.Despite the aforesaid letter, he did not appear and therefore, a notice

was pasted at the address intimating him to be present to examine

and peruse the relevant documents. As the appellant did not appear

Page 9 of 25

to examine the said documents, the Tehsildar, Roorkee proceeded to

pass an order dated 1.9.2005. In the said order, the Tehsildar held

that after going through the documents relied upon by the objector

and other records available, it is revealed that the objector Arshad

Jamil was originally a resident of Mohalla Khalapar, Muzaffarnagar,

which is established by the fact that his name is mentioned as

against House No. 225 of Serial No. 147 of Part No. 42 of 408

Muzaffarnagar Vidhan Sabha Kshetra Electoral Roll, 1995. From the

Electoral Rolls of 2003, it was also found that a photo identity card of

Arshad Jamil was prepared by the Election Commission of India for

Electoral Roll of Muzaffarnagar Vidhan Sabha, wherein his name

appeared until it was deleted in 2007 on the basis of information

supplied by his father on 27.08.06. His father informed them that his

son was now staying at Roorkee.

19.The other documents filed by the appellant were also considered, by

which it was deduced that the objector had obtained the caste

certificate in question by fraud. In that view of the matter the

Tehsildar, Roorkee held that such caste certificate should not have

been issued to the appellant and therefore, passed an order that the

Page 10 of 25

caste certificate dated 29.6.2002 be cancelled by issuing his order

dated 1.9.2005.

20.Meanwhile, the appellant filed writ petition No. 413 of 2005

challenging the order dated 18.12.2004, terminating his service. He

also filed another writ petition being writ petition no. 408 of 2006

challenging the order of cancellation of his caste certificate. The

High Court considered the writ petition no. 413 of 2005 filed by the

appellant, which was allowed by the High Court by order dated

23.12.2005. By the said order, the High Court directed the

reinstatement of the appellant with continuity of service without any

break, but ordered that the said reinstatement would be without any

salary or allowances for the period for which he had not actually

worked.

21.The writ petition No. 408 of 2006 was taken up for final hearing by

the High Court and by Judgment and Order dated 13.8.2008 the writ

petition was dismissed holding that the appellant cannot get the

benefit of being OBC status in the State of Uttrakhand as he is a

permanent resident of Muzaffarnagar, UP and also that he obtained a

false certificate of being resident of Roorkee, District Haridwar,

Uttrakhand.

Page 11 of 25 22.As against the aforesaid, the two orders passed by the High Court,

three Special Leave Petitions as aforestated came to be filed in this

Court in which notices were issued. The same were listed before us

for hearing and we heard the learned counsel appearing for the

parties on the said Special Leave Petitions and by this common

Judgment and Order we are disposing of all these Special Leave

Petitions, after granting leave therein and by giving our reasons.

23.Counsel appearing for the appellant-Arshad Jamil forcefully argued

that the respondent-State did not have any jurisdiction to review the

order granting caste certificate in favour of the appellant. According

to him, after the grant of the aforesaid caste certificate dated

29.6.2002, the matter was once reviewed by the Tehsildar, Roorkee

and in the fresh inquiry also it was found and revealed that the

appellant was ordinarily a resident of Uttarakhand and that he

belongs to Other Backward Classes and therefore no further review

was called for and permissible. According to him, the police also

made a verification wherein it was also established that he has been

residing in Roorkee for a very long time and, therefore, an ordinary

resident of Roorkee. He therefore submitted that the subsequent

review made by the Tehsildar regarding the caste verification was

Page 12 of 25

without jurisdiction. Counsel also submitted before us that there has

been enough cogent evidence on record to justify and prove that the

appellant has been in Roorkee at least from the year 1998, which fact

is proved from the municipal records itself, and the police verification

report also having stated that he has been in Roorkee for about 12

years, the order of cancellation of the caste certificate is illegal and

without jurisdiction. He submitted that the expression "ordinarily

resident" does not bar simultaneous residence at some other place

also, for a person could be at two places at the same time. He also

submitted that the order of cancellation of his caste certificate came

to be passed on the basis of the dictation of the District Magistrate,

which is apparent on the face of the records and, therefore, such an

order which is passed at the behest and dictation of a higher

authority is illegal and irrational. According to the counsel, there is

enough evidence on record like lawyers' identity card issued by

Uttarakhand HC Bar Association, entry of his name in the electoral

roll of Roorkee in the year 2003, the Hibanama and also the

certificate of the landlord showing him as a resident of Roorkee and

the municipal records indicating the residence at Roorkee from 1998

to 2003 which, when collectively read, would support the contention

that the appellant is ordinarily resident of Roorkee and, therefore,

Page 13 of 25

entitled to get a caste certificate of the nature which was issued to

him and, therefore, cancellation of the same by the authority was

illegal and is liable to be set aside.

24.Counsel appearing for the respondent however, while rebutting the

aforesaid contentions, submitted that the documents on record

clearly indicate that the appellant has been a resident of

Muzaffarnagar, UP at least upto 2002 and thereafter, in order to

make himself eligible to apply for a reserved post, he created

documents to indicate that he is an ordinary resident of Roorkee. He

has also drawn our attention to the various documents on record,

including the document which he had submitted to the Bar Council

of India applying for enrolment and the certificate given by the Bar

Council, showing his residence to be at Muzaffarnagar. It was also

submitted by him that the High Court was justified in upholding the

administrative action taken by the respondent State, as judicial

review of such administrative action should and could be exercised

only in a very limited sphere. He submitted that the aforesaid order

of cancellation of the caste certificate was done after an order was

passed by the High Court directing for giving a hearing to the

Page 14 of 25

appellant and that upon giving such reasonable opportunity to the

appellant, his caste certificate was finally cancelled.

25.In the light of the aforesaid submissions of the counsel appearing for

the parties, we have perused the records and also perused the

decisions relied upon by the counsel appearing for the parties.

26.Undisputedly, and as agreed to by the counsel appearing for the

parties during the course of hearing of arguments, if the order

passed by the High Court upholding the cancellation of a caste

certificate is confirmed by this Court, in that event it would not be

necessary to go into the other aspect regarding the issue of legality or

otherwise of the order of termination as also the order regarding

payment of back wages to the appellant. On the other hand, if we

find that the order of the High Court cannot be sustained and that

the caste certificate was issued legally and justifiably, in that event,

not only the order canceling the caste certificate is to be set aside

with a direction to restore the caste certificate to the appellant but at

the same time the order of termination shall also have to be quashed.

Consequently, the question with regard to the claim for payment of

arrear of wages shall have to be considered.

Page 15 of 25 27.Therefore, in our considered opinion, the issue with regard to the

issuance of caste certificate and cancellation thereof, is the crucial

question which goes to the root of the dispute between the parties

and the same requires our consideration at the very initial stage.

28.Our attention was drawn to the advertisement issued by the

respondent-State inviting applications for filling up the post of Civil

Judge [Junior Division]. In the said advertisement it was clearly

mentioned that the candidates who claim reservation by claiming to

belong to Other Backward Classes of Uttarakhand, have to produce a

caste certificate in terms of the format attached thereto. It was

mentioned therein that the candidate who claims to be a member of

the backward classes of Uttarakhand and is ordinarily a resident of

Uttarakhand has to submit a caste certificate in format. The

appellant also while applying for the said post, obtained a caste

certificate which was issued by the Tehsildar on 29.6.2002, which is

under challenge.

29.It is no doubt true that the Tehsildar, Roorkee subsequently also

reiterated his stand that the appellant is a member of the other

backward classes and is also ordinarily a resident of Uttarakhand.

Subsequently, however, the same was cancelled by an order dated

Page 16 of 25

02.03.2005 whereby the Tehsildar, Roorkee, who is the competent

authority, cancelled the caste certificate issued to the appellant on

29.6.2002, on the ground that after a detailed inquiry it was revealed

that the appellant had obtained the caste certificate by showing

himself to be a resident of Roorkee in a mischievous manner, while

he was actually a permanent resident of Muzaffarnagar and has

thereby, misused the said caste certificate. A copy of the said order is

on record. The said order indicates that District Magistrate had

advised cancelling the certificate. The said order also indicates that

the same was cancelled without giving any opportunity to the

appellant. Therefore, a writ petition was filed by the appellant

challenging the legality and the validity of the order dated

02.03.2005. The said writ petition was allowed by the Uttarakhand

High Court by its order dated 06.05.2005, whereby the High Court

quashed the said order on the ground of violation of principles of

natural justice, with liberty to the Tehsildar to issue a notice to the

appellant and to give reasonable opportunity to file his objections

against the proposal to cancel the caste certificate. In view of the

aforesaid order passed by the High Court, the State Government

became empowered to pass a fresh order in the matter of cancellation

of caste certificate, after giving notice to the appellant to show cause

Page 17 of 25

as to why it should not be cancelled. There is no dispute with regard

to the fact that subsequent thereto the appellant has been given

such an opportunity and he had filed replies thereto. The Tehsildar

thereafter passed a reasoned order by referring to the various

documents filed by the parties and giving reasons for his decisions by

relying upon the documents which are on record.

30.The High Court, where the validity of the order passed by the

Tehsildar on 02.03.2005 was challenged, considered the contentions

raised by the appellant, but dismissed the writ petition holding that

the appellant cannot get the benefit of Other Backward Classes

status in the State of Uttarakhand as he is a permanent resident of

Muzaffarnagar, UP. The High Court has also recorded a finding that

the appellant obtained a false certificate of being a resident of

Roorkee, District-Haridwar, Uttarakhand.

31.Although, the power and the jurisdiction of this Court in the matter

of re-appreciation of evidence is restricted and also keeping in mind

the well-settled principles that the scope of judicial review of

administrative action is very restricted and limited and, therefore, we

should be slow in interfering with the finding of facts arrived at by

the High Court, we still looked into the entire records and the

Page 18 of 25

documents relied upon in order to satisfy ourselves that the action

taken by the respondent-State in canceling the certificate of the

appellant is legal, just and proper.

32.On considering the evidence on record and the documents placed

before us we find that the appellant received his education in

Muzaffarnagar except for a period when he studied in Mysore. He

also obtained his Law Degree from Muzaffarnagar Law College.

During the aforesaid period he was a resident of Muzaffarnagar

which is established from the records available with us. The

appellant thereafter obtained his graduation from the Law College at

Muzaffarnagar, and got himself enrolled with the Bar Council of

Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad. He submitted his application on

01.12.1999 and he received the enrolment on 09.03.2000 in which

also his address was shown as 225, Khalapur, District-

Muzaffarnagar, U.P. His name as well as the names of his family

members were included in the ration card which has been made in

District-Muzaffarnagar. The said ration card however came to be

cancelled by the supply office in the year 2001, during card

verification scheme for want of a photograph. Despite his claim that

he was residing in Roorkee, there is no documentary evidence to

Page 19 of 25

prove the said fact except for a document which has been placed on

record, being municipal record, but issued in the year 2003 showing

him as a tenant of Furkan Ahmed in Mohalla Shekhpuri for the

period from 1998 to 2003. But if he was staying in Roorkee from the

year 1998, there was no reason why other documentary evidence is

not available in support of his contention that he was ordinarily a

resident of Roorkee. His name came to be recorded in the electoral

roll of Roorkee in the District-Haridwar only in the year 2003. The

records placed before us show that the name of the appellant was

included in the electoral roll of Muzaffarnagar in the year 1993 on

the basis of door to door survey made by the election commissioner.

Since he was found residing in Muzaffarnagar, his name was

included in the voters list of Muzaffarnagar constituency. His name

finds place in the electoral roll of Muzaffarnagar constituency for the

year 1993, 1995, 1998 and 2003. The voter identity card of the

appellant was also issued to him from the Muzaffarnagar Assembly

constituency showing him to be a resident of House No. 225,

Mohalla-Khalapur, District-Muzaffarnagar, U.P. The name of the

appellant in the aforesaid voter list continued to be there till his

father informed them in the year 2006 that his son is now residing in

Roorkee and, therefore, his name is to be deleted from the voters list.

Page 20 of 25 The appellant submitted his application for being appointed for the

post of Civil Judge [Junior Division] alongwith the cast certificate

issued to him on 29.6.2002. There is no contemporaneous document

prior to the same showing and justifying his claim that he was

ordinarily a resident of Roorkee.

33.Our attention was also drawn to the Section 21 of the

Representation of Peoples Act, 1950 laying down the procedure and

method for the preparation and revision of electoral rolls in a

constituency. Our attention was also drawn to Rule 7 of the

Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 which prove and establish that

an electoral roll is prepared on the basis of enumeration done by the

election staff after making a door to door verification and on the basis

of the information disclosed by the family members and the house

they visit. On the said disclosures made, the name of the appellant

was included in the voters list of Muzaffarnagar upto 2003 and

therefore, it cannot be said that he was not only ordinarily resident of

Muzaffarnagar but a permanent resident thereof.

34.In view of such authentic and sufficient documentary evidence on

record to reject the claim of the appellant that he was an ordinarily

resident of Roorkee, the findings recorded by the Tehsildar, Roorkee

Page 21 of 25

in his order dated 02.03.2005 and also those recorded by the High

Court cannot be sought to be in any manner arbitrary, illegal or

irrational.

35.In the case of Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to

SC and ST in the State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Union of

India & Anr. reported in (1994) 5 SCC 244 a Constitution Bench of

this Court considered the issue regarding a person belonging to

SC/ST in relation to his original State of which he is a permanent or

ordinary resident. While examining the said issue it was held that

such a person who belongs to SC/ST in one State of which he is a

permanent or ordinary resident cannot deem to belong to SC/ST in

relation to another State on his migration to that State for the

purpose of employment, education, etc. The aforesaid conclusions

were arrived at by the Constitution Bench of this Court after referring

to the Government order wherein the expression "ordinary residence"

came to be explained as residence which is not for the purpose of

service, employment, education, confinement in jail, etc., and in

short it means permanent and not a temporary residence. The

Constitution Bench also referred to Section 20 of the Representation

of Peoples Act, that so far as the Government of India is concerned, it

Page 22 of 25

has firmly held the view that a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe

person who migrates from the State of his origin to another State in

search of employment or for education purposes or the like, cannot

be treated as a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled

Tribe of the State to which he migrates and hence he cannot claim

benefit as such in the latter State.

36.The order which is passed by the Tehsildar whereby he had finally

cancelled the caste certificate of the appellant and which is the

impugned order under challenge in the writ petition, was a detailed

order giving cogent reasons for the decision rendered. The said order

cannot be termed as an order passed by him at anybody's behest or

at the dictation of his superior officer. The aforesaid order was

passed independently exercising his own independent mind and

upon detailed examination of the records. Therefore, the submission

that the same was passed at the dictation of the higher authority or

that the same was passed for extraneous consideration is baseless

and without any merit.

37.The appellant has failed to prove and establish that he is an

ordinary resident of Roorkee in the year 2002 when he made an

application for his appointment to the post of Civil Judge [Junior

Page 23 of 25

Division] and also when he applied for and obtained the caste

certificate. The caste certificate was initially issued to him without

making a proper and detailed inquiry, and the Tehsildar proceeded

on the basis of certain observation of two persons. A caste certificate

is a very important and substantial document and, therefore, while

granting the same a proper inquiry is required to be made by the

Tehsildar which appears to have been not done in the present case,

and the Tehsildar issued the said caste certificate to the appellant in

a perfunctory manner and therefore, the same was cancelled by a

detailed order giving cogent and valid reasons thereof.

38.Consequently, we find no infirmity in the judgment and order dated

13.08.2008, in writ petition no. 408 of 2006 passed by the High

Court, upholding the order of the Tehsildar canceling the caste

certificate of the appellant. The appeal filed by the appellant against

the order dated 13.8.2008 of the High Court fails.

39.Consequently, the appeal filed by the State of Uttarakhand against

the order dated 23.12.2005, passed by the High Court, setting aside

the order of termination of the appellant in writ petition no. 413 of

2004 stands allowed in terms of this order.

Page 24 of 25 40.In view of the aforesaid position, the appeal filed by the appellant

against the order dated 23.12.2005, passed by the High Court in writ

petition no. 413 of 2004, claiming payment of back wages is rendered

infructuous, which is also dismissed in terms of this order.

............................................J

[Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]

............................................J

[Anil R. Dave]

New Delhi,

September 7, 2011.

Page 25 of 25